Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[Kurt_Banoffee]

You don't make a clear point.
You don't say what proof you want, you just say you don't have it.
Do you not believe the 95+% of scientists that there is climate change?

Here is a set of very clear FACTS directly addressing your questions:

1) Mainstream anthropogenic climate change theory isn't even remotely proven. The very simple and very undeniable fact is that the atmosphere has not responded at all as the models have predicted. This doesn't mean man is not the cause, but it does absolutely mean there are errors in the science that is driving the assumptions used in the models.

2) It's not possible to "prove" any global climate change theory, there simply isn't enough data. There are also important climate systems such as cloud cover that we don't even begin to know how to model.

3) Believing the climate is changing is common sense as it has been for the last 4.5 billion years. Believing that man is causing the recent changes is a wholly different thing.

4) The 95% claim is complete nonsense dreamed up by John Cook who is a political hack by any definition. Not only was his "study" methodology of reviewing journal abstracts and divining the beliefs of the authors a joke, he didn't even follow the methodology he laid out. More importantly, of the 11,944 published climate papers that he examined, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950. That's 0.3% not 95+%.

When you tune your models to hindcast, and they fail to accurately forecast, there is a problem.

When the most accurate model of the climate over the past 20 years is the one that assumed no GHG growth, there is a problem.

When you claim 95% certainty in understanding a system as complex as Earth's climate, that's just a joke - particularly when virtually everything you predict fails to happen.

Finally, a very simple, easy to understand, undeniable fact is that in order for the computer models that are telling us that we are going to all fry to come up with their sensational, media and grantworthy predictions, they rely on assumptions that have NEVER been observed in nature. While doing this to try to understand the climate is science, claiming you understand the climate when your assumptions prove to be wrong IS NOT.

By all means, build every QDSC possible where it makes sense. Don't kill billions of people by denying them inexpensive electricity or bankrupt nations because PlayStation climate "science" claims certainty where none exists.