Professor Curry explains how even the 97% scientific consensus is a fraudulent claim.
by Judith Curry
An academic feud swirls around how best or even whether to express the scientific consensus around climate change.
View original post 1,073 more words
One thought on “The 97% feud”
It’s a good paper, Texas. But it made me think: there was a time when ‘scientific consensus’ said blacks were subhuman (or Jews, if you lived in Germany). The problem for these elitists who think science should run or govern our world is that science is always changing its mind, and that is because ‘science’ cannot ‘prove’ anything. All it can do is argue probability of certainty, and when the ‘scientists’ are motivated by political agenda, those of us who see the Truth see right through them and their lies. I think that is what is happening here with this global warming thing: people see that it is a political agenda, not ‘science.’