/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15985162
>>what we thought about the global climate is wrong and I can prove it.
>However, the people claiming it's all fake can never prove anything. That's why they're unsuccessful in academia. Not for their conclusions but for their methods.
What is provable about climate science? What was the last piece of climate research that consisted of a hypothesis being tested?
The field is based on an inherently unsound concept, ie climate computer models. They are a Chinese room of weather data. The map is not the territory. Models are not reality. The predictive field of climatology is a joke. The instrumental records are flawed and analyses of them are prone to bias and the data is a symmetrically adjusted. The actual physical infrastructure of weather monitoring stations is compromised.

There are serious theoretical and epistemological problems with much of climate science when the fundamental tools of measurement, the foundations of any natural philosophy, are so problematic.
I know you don't trust the Heartland Institute, but Anthony Watts has been a meteorologist for 40 years. By the standards of the weather station administrators, the vast majority are improperly situated. When fluctuations of a half a degree allegedly matter, perfect situation of weather stations is paramount. You can't adjust for badly placed stations. Much data is fundamentally tainted.