AGW is supposedly science, but you can’t replicate most of the results, so the experiments are by definition ascientific.
Bingo.
Which data sets do you trust? Ground or satellite? They don’t agree with each other.
For ground data, whom decides how the data is “adjusted” and why? Why is it adjusted?
As we had a middle ages warming period, along with a little ice age and constant climate change, how do you separate any natural changes from human activity? ...now consider statistical noise too.
Why do we have lots of different models if the science is “done”?
Why do none of the models correlate with actual temperatures?
What benefits might we see with increased CO2?
Is all the CO2 increases purely from human activities?
I’m sorry...I’m asking QUESTIONS!!! You’d think that’d be part of “science” or something! Not only does climate science not allow dissent but it can’t provide testable hypothesis’ either. It ISN’T equal to physics or chemistry, it is more analogous to medical science or soft-sciences.
And when the models don’t match reality, guess what, you’re models are WRONG!!!