You explain it so well, madamswer.
Even as a non scientist type I can understand your point and agree with your reasoning.
In discussions with other non science types (average people like myself), I find it difficult to get them to accept that computer modelling is only as accurate as the data inputs.
For some reason they have trouble accepting that the Lab Coat’s don’t have enough information, even when I point out all the most common exaggerations related to the so called science and the failures of so many apocalyptic theories related to the Spin from the modelling’s.
Their only comeback is that I’m a science denier.
Obviously I don’t have any degrees to back up my assertion’s that our best and brightest scientists and scientific institutions are “Milking a Bull” with their claims of scientific consensus cannot be argued with but I have found that most of my peers have to google “what is science “ when I ask them this question.
It seems that most humans don’t like to think that we don’t know everything or that our scientific types don’t know everything (more to the point).
It used to be In God we Trust that kept the evil at bay and that has now been replaced by In Science we Trust to keep the evil weather at bay.
The climate debate is very similar to the Jab’s/Novel Treatments debate.
The mounting evidence of inconsistencies are slowly waking up the trusting types who prefer to be told what to believe.
Common sense or the ever increasing smell of excrement (or both) seems to be reducing the gullibility factor in my peer groups but unfortunately there is still a long way to go for many.
Some of them seem to enjoy wallowing and rolling in the smelly stuff and find comfort in the odour de toilet.
