The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic
of alarmist climate science early on because «the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely» and «grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise» and that the IPCC «excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.»
«Another Fundamental Problem
with Alarmist Climate Science How Climate Cultists in the Democratic Party Have Lost Touch with Reality and the Needs of the Less Wealthy»
I am grateful when people take the time to comment and, yes, criticize, but I also think this writer oversells the certainty we should feel
about alarmist climate science and its conclusions.
There will be dueling and inconclusive testimony from the two sides of the science and there will be Steyn knocking the snot out of
the alarmist climate science establishment.
Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action.
In recent years, important hypotheses of
alarmist climate science have been shown to be scientifically invalid despite alarmists» claims that their hypotheses represent a «consensus» among climate scientists.
«Where the 2016 Presidential Election May Come Out on Climate A Devastating Reassessment of
Alarmist Climate Science»