i.e. there absolutely cannot be any obligation to subscribe to the ideology of either team eddison or team westinghouse in order to make use of a light switch.

Climate change isn't science. It has such a weak predictive power compared to the number of tunable parameters, it fails predicting in short term, it barely succeeds in post-prediction (which isn't enough in any scientific field), and the consensus was reached by bullying competing viewpoints.

And then you have other scientists lying about the science of coronavirus origin to cover their guilty asses which were involved in gain of function research in the lab.

There were vaccines which were "tested" as 96% efficient in preventing infection which somehow, when deployed to the masses, the "science" shifts into 90% efficient in preventing death, then into complete uselessness.

You also have the replication crisis across social sciences or even the Alzheimer fraud recently.

The truly scientific person would notice his understanding is wrong, and that the science brand has been thoroughly abused and should no longer be a reliable indication of truthness.

And the religiously scientific person will keep on worshiping false prophets, because he doesn't understand that being wrong necessitates changing his understanding.

Meanwhile the competition that was "bullied into submission" made ridiculous claims like global cooling all the way until 2014.

Inform yourself about a topic before talking about it.

Here is the ancient paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490....

Oh and nice cherry picking. With the given variable and its pretty small variance, I can cherry pick models too, and claim it is the rain god's judgement, or whatever.

The fact that IPCC's models currently barely even give a consistent prediction, and the variance between them is so high, shows this isn't science.

Everyone's attributing the signal in the models to CO2 or climate change, while the most reasonable explanation, is that the signal is a result of the agreed upon biases and approximations that everyone in "climate science" is copying from each other, and it is also clear that models that were developed independently give more diverging results, the Russian model even predicting cooling.