Is adverse weather mistaken for climate change? The age of politicized science

We are still learning about how the sub-atomic world is constructed. We may soon reach a new era where quantum physics is replaced by a new paradigm, just as Newtonian physics was replaced by quantum physics, just over one years ago. We are still not sure how the universe was formed. We are on the verge of discovering new layers of the Earth's core. This may, or may not be another factor influencing weather and climate. Excavations around the ancient city of Angkor Wat, are finding clues it may be much older than originally thought.

Science is the patient pursuit of new information, that sometimes leads to new truths. These clues may appear after decades of work, which may bring new revelations in the science they are working upon. Why would climate change science be any different?

The climate change hypothesis is yet to stand upon any solid facts

The first task in any science investigation is to find all the variables that contribute to the study of a phenomena, in this case climate change. We have many parallel models to look at and examine within our solar system for clues. All planets have been affected by climate change. We also have remaining artefacts from the Earth's natural history to tell us what the climate once was.

Once all the variables have been identified, they can be measured, modelled with certain assumptions, to project retrospectively into the past to see any possible correlations. This gives us a hypothesis to then project into the future.

Climate change science is just that, a bunch of complex assumptions, about complex variables, that are projected into the future. As game theory suggests, there can be many different outcomes, as variables are changed.

Consequently, Climate change science is completely based upon modelling into the future. Its an unproven hypothesis. This was not too much different with the original Covid-19 modelling undertaken by Professor Neil Ferguson's group at Manchester University. We all know about the grave mathematical errors these models made, just projecting a few months into the future.

Projecting mathematical climate change models fifty and one hundred years into the future, based primarily upon weather data that has only been collected over the last few years, is fraught with danger of being grossly inaccurate.

Climate change science, which is based upon mathematical modelling is nothing more than a prediction of an outcome in the future. It's not unsimilar to taking all known variables about an upcoming horse race and trying to predict a winner. There will always be unknown variables, incorrectly measured variables, butterfly effects we are not aware of, and black swan events.

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in science as a research tool, more complex models can be developed with more complex variables. AI systems will be able to sift through data and look for relationships within variables, humans are not able to pick up. Generative modelling will be able to look at, and evaluate data, to arrive at the most plausible hypothesis. This will be a gamechanger in climate science.

You cannot have science without continuous research

Without further objective and impartial research, climate change will never be fully understood. One grave concern within the research community is that scientists are given grants on the basis of their attitudes towards climate change. The funders of climate change research are politicians, not scientists. There are expectations research supports current narratives, so there are no incentives and even a danger to researchers who would present any research deviating from those ideas. Climate change is dependent upon carbon emissions and other hypotheses would totally destroy the industries built around this assumption.

This is a great disincentive to go beyond the envelop in climate change research. These expectations and behavior of the climate cult are doing a great disservice to science and the pursuit of objective research.