Yes, just like we know that biology is true so why spend more money on basic research. Or we know weather happens so why bother trying to improve the prediction models? Let's just use the Farmer's Almanac. In fact why bother doing any science research at all? We already know some stuff.
Climate science is important. Having some idea of what we can expect is important for planning. How far and quickly will the sea rise? Where might droughts start occuring? Stuff like that.
But it's telling that you would refer to scientists as clowns. Morons tend to do that.
First of all, biology is a field of science and they study various processes concerned with living organisms. They use the scientific method to either support or refute a hypothesis or theory. They use evidence to support their views. They do not decree things to be true then say 'Don't worry about all of our blown predictions, there is a consensus'.
They ought to work on improving their models? Ya think? When you consider that every single one of their models is WRONG, I guess they should have been doing that all along. The question becomes, if there is a consensus, why would the consensus model be wrong, if the consensus is actually correct. It seems a lot more logical that the consensus model is wrong, because the consensus is wrong.
Don't worry though, there used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat, and the Earth was the center of the Universe.
I really hit a raw nerve on this one, because we all know what global warming is all about. It's got nothing to do with making the world a better place, it has everything to do with money and power of the elite. The global warming profiteers like Al Gore will never rest and they will do whatever it takes to consolidate as much money and power for themselves. Of course for every scoundrel getting rich on a lie, an army of useful idiots is required. So FC are you a scoundrel or a useful idiot?
On one final note, its March 17th and its fucking snowing out, so how does that fit into your model, Michael Mann.
