Global Warming Hysteria As 'Science' ... Really?

Okay, it's time for both(!) sides of the global warming debate to take a deep breath and apply common sense.

First, all this pollution going into our planet's atmosphere has to have consequences of some kind. That's just common sense. But if pumped-up hysteria keeps proving itself to be false, you lose credibility. And you lose support. Do we really want people tuning out? That's what irrational claims (claims that facts prove are way off) will do to the movement. Proven untrue hysteria makes it more difficult to make some basic and necessary progress.

Case in point. Al Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic as early as 2013. He claimed this at the U.N. as well as at numerous other venues within and outside the USA. He even received the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming 'insights' and repeated that Arctic ice disappearance claim in his acceptance speech! It created considerable alarm around the world. Today's update: Both Arctic and Antarctic ice have increased ... dramatically in recent years! What does that tell us about the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Al Gore and the more hysterical among these advocates?

Another case in point is the irony of ships going to the Antarctic to study the loss of ice getting stuck in ice that's increasing at near-record rates. The optics of that do great harm to the 'global warming' movement and hysterics over it.

Another case in point is that the average global temperature hasn't increased for 17 years. But that fact doesn't keep alarmists from claiming that temperatures are increasing.

As to the basics of this 'science', one cannot easily dismiss skepticism about all(!) 17 'highly respected' computer climate models being proved completely wrong about the disappearance of Arctic ice. Common sense suggests that since computer modelling can only predict tomorrow's(!) local weather with an accuracy of 50%, computer models of the entire planet's weather are pretty much guaranteed to be no more than a guess. Isn't global weather more complicated than figuring out what tomorrow's weather is going to be? Common sense most definitely yes. So, why is it such a surprise in some circles that all(!) 17 models were wrong?

Do facts matter? They do if we truly care about the effects of all this pollution. The 'Chicken Little' thing applies. Keep sounding alarms about the sky falling and after years of the prediction proving to be completely untrue people will stop listening much less caring. Do we care whether people start tuning out when the subject comes up? I presume you'd answer yes. Then I recommend the 'scientists' and global warming supporters start saying things that make sense and prove to be true.