Not exact matches
One can poke a gazillion holes in «Theory X», but this doesn't prove «Theory Y» (which includes arguments that
AGW is «
Junk Science»).
The «Pause» is minor to the elephant in the room;
AGW is a political
junk science meme from a community very sympathetic to Green activism on carbon, then and now.
I've discussed the subject with family members that were at one point dead certain that
AGW was «only a theory» and was wildly overstated if not «
junk science», but who grasped the relevant issues relatively quickly and revised their opinion as they went along.
AGW also has truckloads of
junk science and could also mostly be considered pseudoscience.
Some time around 2007 or 2008, I came across one of Steven Milloy's
junk science articles related to
AGW.
This is the kind of
Junk Science you would SCREAM about if it were used to debunk
AGW!!
The
AGW promotion industry now does not bother hiding their reliance on
junk science to spread hype and gain funding.
The claim «that 90 % of
AGW warming is going into the oceans» is the worst sort of
junk science.
People see the claims of
AGW promoters and while they might not understand radiative physics as much as
science of doom know
junk claims when they see them.
The «
science» of
AGW is
junk science and the
AGW scam is a political plan for grabbing power and wealth.
When observations do not support your favorite
AGW theory and falsify inefficient models» outputs, then... modify the data... That's climate
science way but that's
junk science.
The saddest part of this, is that those promoting
AGW, whether in ignorance or in knowledge of the
junk science it is, no matter how high up the pecking order they think they are, are just useful dupes for those raking in the real money.
I am so fed up of this
AGW junk science being taught to our children, they are incapable of understanding and will become incapable of creating real
science knowledge as in this example.