So how many of you would travel over a bridge which stands on support pillars rated 100t +/- 50t?
Or buy a pill at the pharmacy of effectiveness 50% +/- 40%?
Luckily these are not considered satisfactory outputs for science.
The biggest con that has been pulled here is passing these works of climate imagination as science. Its based on insufficient data, poor modeling, skewed graphs and suprisingly little respect for other scientific disciplines in particular statistics.
As to the point what authority us laymen have to question the experts. I think this is a cop-out last resort defense. I know 2+2=4. If some climate teacher wants to use 2+2=5 to prove a conclusion. I am sorry but we are all qualified to question this. As a quick example find some charts that show the touted 1.5degree rise. Move the start and end of the regression a year and see if you can get a negative gradient! I know I can. Is it wrong to question? Its not in science.
If anything this maybe a science in its very very early days and we have to accept we know nothing about what it will look like 5-10-25 years from now. That is, stop worrying about protecting theories and predictions and keep working on gathering knowledge. Knowledge you like and don't like.
Climate teachings it seems can only be done by the experts. Despite its many errors we must believe it and most importantly we can't question it. We can not apply our analysis or logic to anything contained therein. Those who do will be defamed. Sounds more like a religion than science.
