Climate change is settled science? This is what they would have us believe. Predictions are based on ‘models’ which the man-made climate change proponents appear to take as fact. How can they possibly predict what will be happening in one hundred years’ time or even one hundred days’ time? After all predictions up to now have been seriously inaccurate. Despite the dire warnings emanating from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about ever-increasing global warming there has been no discernible warming for seventeen years. The 50,000,000 climate refugees predicted for 2010, thankfully, did not appear. No arctic ice in summer 2013? Wrong again. Yet the doom and gloomers continue, undaunted. Scaring the wits out of schoolchildren, using unproven hypotheses.
Scientists complain that the IPCC is biased and that contradictory evidence is not given the same prominence as the theory that panel members wish to disseminate. And these highly dubious scare stories and data are at the core of the latest proposals to openly geoengineer the planet by spraying us with sulphuric acid. The main proponent of this, David Keith, has openly admitted that he is unsure of the exact consequences of this proposed action. Fortunately, it seems that others are not so easily captivated by this plan. Mike Hulme, professor of climate and culture in the School of Social Science and Public Policy at King’s College London, has doubts about the accuracy of climate models at local and regional levels and, in debate with David Keith, states that:
What you are claiming then is that we can rely upon these same models to be able to ascertain accurately the additional effects of sulphur loading of the stratosphere. Frankly, I would not bet a dollar on such results, let alone the fate of millions.
The Oxford debate: