Science, Scientists And Method.

Should we not be applying scientific method to scientists? I ask because the Global Warming scam rolls on and more and more nonsense spews out, often from people who you think cannot just be doing and saying what they do to further the aims of Marxism. Clearly they are intellectual morons. But the man in the street is shielded from the fact because the legacy media, the traditional 'newspapers' no longer investigate stories and often are Left oriented anyway.

In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.

Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.

So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.

Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.

Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.

If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.

Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.

So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!