The great global warming fraud

[schmidlap]

Wind and solar are dead as they cant meet demand. Climate change is a lie used to advance socialism. Renewable energy will wreck the economy. Its over baby

The science is determinative.

Progress is well underway.

You may want to revert to pushing comparable flat earth dogma instead.

Renewables — especially solar and wind — are now cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives in most markets. In 2024, more than 90% of new electricity capacity worldwide came from renewables- World Resources Institute+1.

Solar power is about 41% cheaper than fossil generation, and onshore wind costs less than half - Climate Action.

Investment in clean energy hit $2 trillion in 2024, more than $800 billion above fossil fuel investment - Climate Action.

 

[Hafar1014]

The science is determinative.

Progress is well underway.

You may want to revert to pushing comparable flat earth dogma instead.

Renewables — especially solar and wind — are now cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives in most markets. In 2024, more than 90% of new electricity capacity worldwide came from renewables- World Resources Institute+1.

Solar power is about 41% cheaper than fossil generation, and onshore wind costs less than half - Climate Action.

Investment in clean energy hit $2 trillion in 2024, more than $800 billion above fossil fuel investment - Climate Action.

Renewable energy will always cost more and cant meet demand as Euorpe is proving
High energy costs, grid bottlenecks, and shifting subsidies are driving some energy-intensive businesses out of Europe. While the European Union’s (EU) transition to homegrown, zero-carbon electricity aims to eventually provide affordable power, structural issues during the transition have created massive price disparities compared to other global markets.
LinkedIn·Wopke Hoekstra +3

Why Businesses Are Relocating

• Extreme Price Disparities: Electricity prices in the EU remain about two-and-a-half times higher than in the United States, driving energy-intensive manufacturers and startups to relocate or expand elsewhere.
  WSJ +1
• Energy Shocks: Despite the rapid expansion of solar and wind, European grids still depend on imported liquid natural gas (LNG), leaving businesses vulnerable to global supply and price shocks.
  ember-energy.org +1
• Outdated Infrastructure: Over 40% of EU power grids are more than 40 years old. This creates severe grid congestion, resulting in billions of dollars in lost renewable energy and unreliable power supplies for commercial operations.
  LinkedIn·Wopke Hoekstra

 

[schmidlap]

Renewable energy will always cost more and cant meet demand as Euorpe is proving
High energy costs, grid bottlenecks, and shifting subsidies are driving some energy-intensive businesses out of Europe. While the European Union’s (EU) transition to homegrown, zero-carbon electricity aims to eventually provide affordable power, structural issues during the transition have created massive price disparities compared to other global markets.
LinkedIn·Wopke Hoekstra +3

Why Businesses Are Relocating

• Extreme Price Disparities: Electricity prices in the EU remain about two-and-a-half times higher than in the United States, driving energy-intensive manufacturers and startups to relocate or expand elsewhere.
  WSJ +1
• Energy Shocks: Despite the rapid expansion of solar and wind, European grids still depend on imported liquid natural gas (LNG), leaving businesses vulnerable to global supply and price shocks.
  ember-energy.org +1
• Outdated Infrastructure: Over 40% of EU power grids are more than 40 years old. This creates severe grid congestion, resulting in billions of dollars in lost renewable energy and unreliable power supplies for commercial operations.

Why do you imagine that advanced, democratic nations are respecting science, and accelerating the transformation to clean energy?

Europeans want more renewables, even if it increases energy bills​

Europeans overwhelmingly support shifting to renewable energy, with two in five saying they are even happy to temporarily pay higher bills to accelerate the transition, according to a new POLITICO European Pulse survey of six European countries.​

​

The public support for clean power comes as the war in Iran exposes the EU's vulnerability to fluctuating global energy markets, and will help Brussels in its drive to replace imported fossil fuels with homegrown renewables...​

Trump's foolish war is furthering support for clean energy:

​

Rather than needing to convince voters, the findings indicate a broad base of support already exists, particularly as energy security climbs up the political agenda.​

​

The Iran conflict has exposed a vulnerability Europe has long struggled to address: its dependence on imported fossil fuels.​

​

​

 

[Hafar1014]

Why do you imagine that advanced, democratic nations are respecting science, and accelerating the transformation to clean energy?

Europeans want more renewables, even if it increases energy bills​

Europeans overwhelmingly support shifting to renewable energy, with two in five saying they are even happy to temporarily pay higher bills to accelerate the transition, according to a new POLITICO European Pulse survey of six European countries.​

​

The public support for clean power comes as the war in Iran exposes the EU's vulnerability to fluctuating global energy markets, and will help Brussels in its drive to replace imported fossil fuels with homegrown renewables.​

​

​

There is no science that supports human caused climate change or the effectiveness of renewable energy.
Manufacturing is leaving Europe because of high energy costs and shortages. They ae coming to America because we are stopping renewables and going to nuclear LNG and fossil fuels. Have you ever been to Europe. Their energy is costly and in short supply.
The war is short term and has no effect on Nuclear energy which is the future. Europe will fall far behind as they wreck their economies with costly unreliable energy that cant supply a data center. Data centers are the future and renewable energy cant meet that demand. Its already obsolete.

 

[PeanutGallery]

There's also a logical problem at the heart of this whole approach. If the standard is "some predictions were wrong, therefore distrust the entire field," then we should stop trusting weather forecasting because individual storm predictions miss, stop trusting medicine because prognoses are sometimes wrong, and stop trusting economics because recessions don't arrive on schedule. Nobody actually applies this standard universally. It gets applied specifically to climate science, specifically when predictions miss in the alarmist direction, and not at all when predictions of no problem turn out to be wrong--which they frequently are. That's not skepticism. That's a conclusion dressed up as a methodology.

What happens more often, the weather forecast is correct or not? The response to all the talk with predictions that are incorrect is to come back with climate predictions have been correct. The problem is I don't think those who are all-in on climate change can present data sources of predictions that have turned out to be correct. So, you're running into the problem I've mentioned before. If you don't have any previous predictions that turn out right, why should we listen to you now.

 

[Hafar1014]

What happens more often, the weather forecast is correct or not? The response to all the talk with predictions that are incorrect is to come back with climate predictions have been correct. The problem is I don't think those who are all-in on climate change can present data sources of predictions that have turned out to be correct. So, you're running into the problem I've mentioned before. If you don't have any previous predictions that turn out right, why should we listen to you now.

Its not about the climate. Its fear to use an an excuse to expand government, increase taxes, and control our behavior and choices. This is how the left socialists increase their power. It creates green industrial complex that kicks back money to democrats who pass laws forcing us to use their expensive unreliable power. Now that AI and data centers are growing renewable energy will never meet that demand. So now we have the left demonizing data centers. See how they work. Create false crisis, then create solution that expands their power. It then feeds on itself. Look at Minn its the same model.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Its not about the climate. Its fear to use an an excuse to expand government, increase taxes, and control our behavior and choices. This is how the left socialists increase their power. It creates green industrial complex that kicks back money to democrats who pass laws forcing us to use their expensive unreliable power. Now that AI and data centers are growing renewable energy will never meet that demand. So now we have the left demonizing data centers. See how they work. Create false crisis, then create solution that expands their power. It then feeds on itself. Look at Minn its the same model.

That's true about the fake crisis. Considering that most of those who claim that they believe in climate change don't live their lives like they believe in climate change. Their houses don't have solar panels on them. The IPCC are having conferences flying all over the world. They do know that Microsoft Teams and Zoom exist, right? But then they can't stay in 4 or 5-star hotels and eat at 4 or 5-star restaurants (usually on someone else's dime). It's a hard life, but it's a sacrifice that they're willing to make for the greater good.

 

[Robert W]

Look, I'd love to discuss climate science with you, but, given the caliber of your comment, it doesn't appear you know much about the subject.

You passed up chance to inform us, but took the chance to prove you are arrogant.

 

[Robert W]

Why do you imagine that advanced, democratic nations are respecting science, and accelerating the transformation to clean energy?

Europeans want more renewables, even if it increases energy bills​

Europeans overwhelmingly support shifting to renewable energy, with two in five saying they are even happy to temporarily pay higher bills to accelerate the transition, according to a new POLITICO European Pulse survey of six European countries.​

​

The public support for clean power comes as the war in Iran exposes the EU's vulnerability to fluctuating global energy markets, and will help Brussels in its drive to replace imported fossil fuels with homegrown renewables...​

Trump's foolish war is furthering support for clean energy:

​

Rather than needing to convince voters, the findings indicate a broad base of support already exists, particularly as energy security climbs up the political agenda.​

​

The Iran conflict has exposed a vulnerability Europe has long struggled to address: its dependence on imported fossil fuels.​

​

​

Many words. No proof. Not a single link.

Here is a major problem alarmists have: They have no evidence. This nonsense is not new babies are now middle age from the start of this stuff. Where is the proof. I do not care what Europe believes, why should Americans believe when I have posted many climate scientists who call this nonsense? The nonsense is the alarmism. Climate for periods of 30 years have always varied. We do not get upset when it varies a bit now.

Why More Top Scientists Now Question Climate Alarmism

1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus 1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus (image credits: wikimedia) In the last two years, there has been a remarkable change in the climate science landscape, with more leading researchers

climatecosmos.com

1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus (image credits: wikimedia)
In the last two years, there has been a remarkable change in the climate science landscape, with more leading researchers publicly questioning extreme climate forecasts. According to a 2024 survey published in Nature Climate Change, about 32% of climate scientists now say they are skeptical about the worst-case scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a sharp rise from under 10% just a decade ago. Dr. Judith Curry, former chair at Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, has been candid about her doubts, highlighting that the range of uncertainty in climate projections is often underestimated. These growing concerns are not just academic; they are sparking heated debates at major conferences and in scientific journals. Many scientists argue that consensus is not static and evolves with emerging data. The shift has led to increased calls for greater caution in making bold, alarming declarations about the future climate.

 

[Robert W]

Wind and solar are dead as they cant meet demand. Climate change is a lie used to advance socialism. Renewable energy will wreck the economy. Its over baby

Every climate alarmist hates Trump, has sig lines against Trump and blames him for debunking them. Trump Merely saw who promises death if we won't listen to them.

I wonder if any of them who believe this understands the scheme is to promote socialism?

Some of them scream fascist. Just as a Monarchy has to have a king or queen, Fascism is like that and also needs a king or a queen in government.
Another bad habit they all have is the term democracy. A Democracy is the form of government where all citizens vote on all issues. So, they lie and claim it is a representative democracy not saying that is what a Republic really is. But it is a republic and not a silly form of democracy. They say it to try to run the country all by themselves. They are angry at Trump since he does not go along with them.

While this is off the topic of Climate, their posts are so bad they are really off topic. They want to make America a socialist country.

 

[schmidlap]

Many words. No proof. Not a single link.

Here is a major problem alarmists have: They have no evidence. This nonsense is not new babies are now middle age from the start of this stuff. Where is the proof. I do not care what Europe believes, why should Americans believe when I have posted many climate scientists who call this nonsense? The nonsense is the alarmism. Climate for periods of 30 years have always varied. We do not get upset when it varies a bit now.

Why More Top Scientists Now Question Climate Alarmism

1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus 1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus (image credits: wikimedia) In the last two years, there has been a remarkable change in the climate science landscape, with more leading researchers

climatecosmos.com

1. The Shift in Scientific Consensus (image credits: wikimedia)
In the last two years, there has been a remarkable change in the climate science landscape, with more leading researchers publicly questioning extreme climate forecasts. According to a 2024 survey published in Nature Climate Change, about 32% of climate scientists now say they are skeptical about the worst-case scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a sharp rise from under 10% just a decade ago. Dr. Judith Curry, former chair at Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, has been candid about her doubts, highlighting that the range of uncertainty in climate projections is often underestimated. These growing concerns are not just academic; they are sparking heated debates at major conferences and in scientific journals. Many scientists argue that consensus is not static and evolves with emerging data. The shift has led to increased calls for greater caution in making bold, alarming declarations about the future climate.

 

[schmidlap]

Every climate alarmist hates Trump, has sig lines against Trump and blames him for debunking them. Trump Merely saw who promises death if we won't listen to them.

I wonder if any of them who believe this understands the scheme is to promote socialism?

Some of them scream fascist. Just as a Monarchy has to have a king or queen, Fascism is like that and also needs a king or a queen in government.
Another bad habit they all have is the term democracy. A Democracy is the form of government where all citizens vote on all issues. So, they lie and claim it is a representative democracy not saying that is what a Republic really is. But it is a republic and not a silly form of democracy. They say it to try to run the country all by themselves. They are angry at Trump since he does not go along with them.

While this is off the topic of Climate, their posts are so bad they are really off topic. They want to make America a socialist country.

Your worship of Trump is irrelevant.

Scientific reality is the motivation for the progress in the adoption of clean energy technology globally - including in the U.S. - despite ideological science-denial and billions annually in U.S, taxpayer dollars subsidizing dirty-fuel interests.

In 2026, the U.S. is projected to add 86 gigawatts of new utility-scale capacity, surpassing the previous record of 53 GW in 2025, with 93% of this capacity coming from solar, wind, and storage. Solar energy dominates, accounting for 51% of planned additions, led by Texas, Arizona, California, and Michigan. Battery storage follows at 28%, reflecting a rapid expansion trend that has added over 40 GW in the past five years. Wind energy contributes 14%, including major projects like the 3,650 MW SunZia Wind project in New Mexico, set to become the largest onshore wind facility in the country. By 2026, renewable energy and battery storage are expected to account for 99% of all new electricity capacity, signaling a major shift from fossil fuels to clean energy sources. ​

​

Environment America​

​

 

[Robert W]

Your worship of Trump is irrelevant.

Scientific reality is the motivation for the progress in the adoption of clean energy technology globally - including in the U.S. - despite ideological science-denial and billions annually in U.S, taxpayer dollars subsidizing dirty-fuel interests.

In 2026, the U.S. is projected to add 86 gigawatts of new utility-scale capacity, surpassing the previous record of 53 GW in 2025, with 93% of this capacity coming from solar, wind, and storage. Solar energy dominates, accounting for 51% of planned additions, led by Texas, Arizona, California, and Michigan. Battery storage follows at 28%, reflecting a rapid expansion trend that has added over 40 GW in the past five years. Wind energy contributes 14%, including major projects like the 3,650 MW SunZia Wind project in New Mexico, set to become the largest onshore wind facility in the country. By 2026, renewable energy and battery storage are expected to account for 99% of all new electricity capacity, signaling a major shift from fossil fuels to clean energy sources. ​

​

Environment America​

​

5 states and you are bragging. Amazing.

 

[schmidlap]

5 states and you are bragging. Amazing.

Bragging?

I am noting the reality of global progress in clean energy, including in the United States, and not limited to only five.

 

[Robert W]

Bragging?

I am noting the reality of global progress in clean energy, including in the United States, and not limited to only five.

You like saying clean energy. Ignoring that clean energy did not produce them.

I do not mind one-bit energy that is also round the clock and not harmed by dust and storms.

 

[schmidlap]

You like saying clean energy. Ignoring that clean energy did not produce them.

I do not mind one-bit energy that is also round the clock and not harmed by dust and storms.

"Clean energy" is the accepted term for energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases, rather than having to list "solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, biomass, etc."

What is your "one-bit energy" that you do not mind?

Among the states making significant progress:

• Texas – Leads nationally in total renewable production, driven by massive wind and growing solar capacity. It employs over 396,000 clean energy workers and has attracted about $35 billion in private clean energy investment between 2021–2023.
• California – Generates a high share of in-state renewables (solar, hydro, wind) and employs the most clean energy workers in the U.S. (~624,000 in 2022). It earned the best energy efficiency score (47/50) and invested $45 billion in clean energy projects after the Inflation Reduction Act
• Washington – 76% of in-state electricity comes from renewables, with the lowest power sector emissions in the country (0.09 tCO₂/MWh). The Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) sets a 2045 carbon‑free goal.
• Idaho – 75% of in-state electricity is renewable, mainly hydro and wind, with the second‑lowest emitting power sector.
• Iowa – 63% of generation from wind, the highest wind share in the U.S., with ~45,000 GWh of wind output.
• South Dakota – 61% renewables, dominated by wind and hydro, with renewables exceeding 80% of total generation.
• Kansas – 52% wind, with utility‑scale projects expanding capacity.
• New Mexico – 50% renewables, with rapid solar growth .
• Colorado – 40% renewables, combining wind and solar, boosted by a clean‑energy standard..
• North Dakota – 35% wind, with multiple large‑scale wind facilities.
• 
  
• Certrec. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy.

 

[Rumpole]

You passed up chance to inform us, but took the chance to prove you are arrogant.

Ok, Robert, fair enough, but I'm going to respond only to what you, yourself, expressed, because you didn't link to a citation, you attached a meme.

You are not making an argument. You are performing a magic trick.

The fact that climates differ from one place to another is not a refutation of global warming. It is the very reason climate science exists. Scientists have known since before either of us was born that Siberia is colder than the Sahara and that Antarctica is not Miami Beach. Congratulations on discovering geography.

The question is not whether every place has the same climate. The question is whether the planet's climate system, measured across thousands of locations and over decades of observation, is changing. And it is.

Your argument commits the same error as saying, "Some stocks went up, therefore there was no market crash," or "Some people got richer during the Great Depression, therefore there was no Great Depression." Local variation does not erase a global trend. In fact, the existence of local variation is precisely why scientists use global averages.

And notice the sleight of hand. Nobody is claiming uniformity. Nobody is claiming every square mile of Earth warms at the same rate. The concern is that regions are changing relative to their own historical baselines. Arctic ice is retreating. Coral reefs are bleaching. Sea levels are rising. Wildfires are increasing in many regions. Hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly. These are not prophecies carved into stone tablets. They are observations.

Then comes the inevitable "calm down."

Calm down about what? Measured sea-level rise? Measured glacial retreat? Measured ocean warming? Measured shifts in species ranges? The data do not become less real because somebody adds a patronizing slogan at the end of a paragraph.

Most revealing of all, your argument offers no competing explanation. NASA, NOAA, Copernicus, and virtually every major meteorological agency on Earth are recording the same long-term warming trend. If your answer is not greenhouse gases and climate change, then what is it? Merely pointing at the South Pole and announcing that it is cold is not an explanation. It is a distraction.

The logical flaw here is simple: "Different places have different climates" does not lead to "therefore global warming is not real" any more than "different people have different heights" leads to "therefore nobody is getting taller."

It is a non sequitur wrapped in confidence and presented as insight. If you want me too comment on your citation, link to the source, I don't engage with memes.

 

[Rumpole]

What happens more often, the weather forecast is correct or not? The response to all the talk with predictions that are incorrect is to come back with climate predictions have been correct. The problem is I don't think those who are all-in on climate change can present data sources of predictions that have turned out to be correct. So, you're running into the problem I've mentioned before. If you don't have any previous predictions that turn out right, why should we listen to you now.

Let me be direct with you, PeanutGallery--and I mean you, specifically--because what you've just done deserves to be named clearly and without mercy.

You were handed an argument. A structured, specific, carefully constructed argument about selective skepticism--about the fact that you and people like you apply a standard of distrust to climate science that you apply to absolutely nothing else in your lives. And what did you do with it?

You ignored it.

Not refuted it. Not challenged it. Not even attempted to engage with it. You simply walked past it like it wasn't there, retreated to your corner, and repeated yourself. That is not debate. That is not skepticism. That is intellectual cowardice dressed up in the language of a tough questioner.

And then you had the breathtaking audacity to say you don't think the data exists. You don't think verified climate predictions can be produced. Not that you looked and didn't find them. Not that you examined the record and found it wanting. You just... don't think so. A hunch. A feeling. A conclusion you arrived at before doing a single moment of homework, presented to the rest of us as though it carries the weight of research.

It does not.

Because the predictions exist. The 1988 Arctic ice projections--correct. The IPCC's 1990 temperature trajectory--correct. The stratospheric cooling prediction, one of the most specific and non-obvious forecasts in the history of the field--correct. Sea level rise--correct. Intensifying precipitation--correct. These are not opinions. These are measurements. Recorded. Published. Verified independently by agencies on every continent by scientists who do not know each other and did not coordinate their answers.

You don't get to make that disappear by saying you don't think it exists.

And your weather forecast gambit? The thing you deployed as though it were a killing blow? It failed you. Catastrophically. Because weather forecasting is extraordinarily accurate, and we rely on it constantly, and more to the point--climate science is not weather forecasting. Conflating the two is not a clever rhetorical move. It is a confession that you do not understand what you are arguing against.

Here is what you have not done, and what you cannot do: you have not answered the original question. Why does this standard--some predictions were wrong, therefore distrust the field--apply to climate science and nowhere else? Why not medicine? Why not economics? Why not seismology?

You have no answer. Because there is no principled answer. There is only a preferred conclusion, and a methodology reverse-engineered to reach it.

That, PeanutGallery, is not skepticism.

That is the thing skepticism was invented to protect us from.

 

[Robert W]

Ok, Robert, fair enough, but I'm going to respond only to what you, yourself, expressed, because you didn't link to a citation, you attached a meme.

You are not making an argument. You are performing a magic trick.

The fact that climates differ from one place to another is not a refutation of global warming. It is the very reason climate science exists. Scientists have known since before either of us was born that Siberia is colder than the Sahara and that Antarctica is not Miami Beach. Congratulations on discovering geography.

The question is not whether every place has the same climate. The question is whether the planet's climate system, measured across thousands of locations and over decades of observation, is changing. And it is.

Your argument commits the same error as saying, "Some stocks went up, therefore there was no market crash," or "Some people got richer during the Great Depression, therefore there was no Great Depression." Local variation does not erase a global trend. In fact, the existence of local variation is precisely why scientists use global averages.

And notice the sleight of hand. Nobody is claiming uniformity. Nobody is claiming every square mile of Earth warms at the same rate. The concern is that regions are changing relative to their own historical baselines. Arctic ice is retreating. Coral reefs are bleaching. Sea levels are rising. Wildfires are increasing in many regions. Hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly. These are not prophecies carved into stone tablets. They are observations.

Then comes the inevitable "calm down."

Calm down about what? Measured sea-level rise? Measured glacial retreat? Measured ocean warming? Measured shifts in species ranges? The data do not become less real because somebody adds a patronizing slogan at the end of a paragraph.

Most revealing of all, your argument offers no competing explanation. NASA, NOAA, Copernicus, and virtually every major meteorological agency on Earth are recording the same long-term warming trend. If your answer is not greenhouse gases and climate change, then what is it? Merely pointing at the South Pole and announcing that it is cold is not an explanation. It is a distraction.

The logical flaw here is simple: "Different places have different climates" does not lead to "therefore global warming is not real" any more than "different people have different heights" leads to "therefore nobody is getting taller."

It is a non sequitur wrapped in confidence and presented as insight. If you want me too comment on your citation, link to the source, I don't engage with memes.

Why are you worried about climate?

 

[Robert W]

Let me be direct with you, PeanutGallery--and I mean you, specifically--because what you've just done deserves to be named clearly and without mercy.

You were handed an argument. A structured, specific, carefully constructed argument about selective skepticism--about the fact that you and people like you apply a standard of distrust to climate science that you apply to absolutely nothing else in your lives. And what did you do with it?

You ignored it.

Not refuted it. Not challenged it. Not even attempted to engage with it. You simply walked past it like it wasn't there, retreated to your corner, and repeated yourself. That is not debate. That is not skepticism. That is intellectual cowardice dressed up in the language of a tough questioner.

And then you had the breathtaking audacity to say you don't think the data exists. You don't think verified climate predictions can be produced. Not that you looked and didn't find them. Not that you examined the record and found it wanting. You just... don't think so. A hunch. A feeling. A conclusion you arrived at before doing a single moment of homework, presented to the rest of us as though it carries the weight of research.

It does not.

Because the predictions exist. The 1988 Arctic ice projections--correct. The IPCC's 1990 temperature trajectory--correct. The stratospheric cooling prediction, one of the most specific and non-obvious forecasts in the history of the field--correct. Sea level rise--correct. Intensifying precipitation--correct. These are not opinions. These are measurements. Recorded. Published. Verified independently by agencies on every continent by scientists who do not know each other and did not coordinate their answers.

You don't get to make that disappear by saying you don't think it exists.

And your weather forecast gambit? The thing you deployed as though it were a killing blow? It failed you. Catastrophically. Because weather forecasting is extraordinarily accurate, and we rely on it constantly, and more to the point--climate science is not weather forecasting. Conflating the two is not a clever rhetorical move. It is a confession that you do not understand what you are arguing against.

Here is what you have not done, and what you cannot do: you have not answered the original question. Why does this standard--some predictions were wrong, therefore distrust the field--apply to climate science and nowhere else? Why not medicine? Why not economics? Why not seismology?

You have no answer. Because there is no principled answer. There is only a preferred conclusion, and a methodology reverse-engineered to reach it.

That, PeanutGallery, is not skepticism.

That is the thing skepticism was invented to protect us from.

You clearly are a smart 75-year-old man. Who persuaded you that climate that moves very slow, is a danger to the human race?