Maybe facts should matter

Part of the problem with the whole global-warming horseshit is that so many people have decided that facts don't matter. All the dire global warming predictions you hear and see in the media are based  on models the predict this or that combined with claims that this fact or that fact supports the models' predictions. The fact is, that is just horseshit.

Put aside for the moment that most lay people who "believe in global warming" (like it was the fucking Easter Bunny or something -- actually, that's a very appropriate comparison) could not explain the theory to save their lives. Shouldn't people be asking how accurate the climate models have been in predicting global warming over the last several decades (since Al Gore tried to make this a policy driver in 1988)? Well, they aren't, and there's a reason for that. The models suck.

Just ask Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, who overseas the satellite temperature measurements there:

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

There you have it. Even if you accept the alarmist premise that humans are 100 % responsible for the warming they say has happened -- and, by the way, the surface temperature record is suspect for a lot of reasons, and even then it doesn't support the thesis -- they have been wrong, wrong, wrong about the magnitude of the impact. If the data don't support the theory, why accept the theory?

The bottom line is, the alarmists argue that the observed facts must be wrong, because their computer models on what the climate should be doing can't be wrong. Does that sound scientific to you?