3 Comments
User's avatar
jim peden's avatar

My hat is doffed to you for reading and summarising this fictitious science so that we don't have to. The reliance on modelling is truly breathtaking!

I think we could interpret these negative results as a tacit admission of model failure. Now they want to try some real-world experiments (which is the start of real science). However, I'm guessing they won't know how to account for confounding factors so the results might well be meaningless.

The war on Global Warming, like the wars on Terrorism, Drugs, Alcohol, ... is another of those wars that can never be won because - as you point out - 'it keeps academic types in generous paid employment.'

Expand full comment
David Walker's avatar

I note the use of "model" no less than 12 times...

Expand full comment
c Anderson's avatar

Model, my arse! Yesterday evening off the coast of NW Oregon as I put my livestock away for the night, I watched as the sundown light illuminated chemtrails causing them to turn to pink in the sky. The only time I have previously noted pink sunsets before, was with smoke from forest fires. The lines were obviously demarcated and evenly distributed! Soot. And to answer your question, No, I don’t believe in Sasquatch or smoke recreational pot. I do, however, watch the sky every day as I shepherd my livestock.

Expand full comment