Don't base policy on flawed climate studies

Ken Albertson challenges some scientists' claims that there has been no global warming. He bases his theory on some "hot spots" around the planet last summer. If we are to just cherry-pick extreme temperatures, why ignore this harsh winter? However, neither the hot spots nor the cold spots can today form the basis of science-based forecasting.

If someone is able to prove with scientific certainty why a phenomenon exists, then the scientific method compels that person to also explain, with the same level of scientific certainty, why anomalies, or contradictions, to that phenomenon also exist. If you cannot, then your theory is not robust enough to be considered a scientific law (such as Newton's laws of motion), and it remains just a theory. Statistical probability has no place when determining the robustness of a theory. It either holds in all instances in the frame of reference to which you posit it, or it doesn't. The scientific method, moreover, compels a researcher to be able to predict (if the research has been done correctly) when and how a phenomenon will occur through formulae.

The models presented as proof of manmade global warming and the upcoming consequences thereof, are widely inconsistent and as such, leave one to conclude that the research which forms the basis of these models is flawed. As such, I do not believe we should be basing global social/economic policy on flawed research. If that makes me a denier, then I'm a denier. But at least my denial is based on solid reasoning, and any scientist worth his salt would agree with the need to be able to prove manmade global warming through formulae that are able to predict climate patterns. Otherwise, all this scare-mongering, and resultant actions taken by governments through psuedo science stinks of a political/financial agenda.

Thomas Turk

Phuket