flat-bird

First, even if fossil fuel companies predicted a rise in temperature due to their activities, they're as helpless to predict cause and effect in a complex system as everyone else. They're probably guilty of dishonesty, but it's wrong to act as if they had special insight and ability to predict the future because of what they sell.

Second, most of the alleged warming almost certainly just comes from data tampering by NOAA. NOAA "models" an increasing number of its stations (lately around 40%). On those stations, it fabricates data according to a model, and applies a varying fudge factor that cools the past and warms the present in a way that assumes the CO2 hypothesis.

The first few minutes of this video provide an explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGPq9LSjEw

As far as I know, the code is secret and the data that it runs on is secret, i.e., it is not science, and it is not really even attempting to appear to be science to anyone who knows what science is. Not reproducible even in theory due to secrecy means it cannot be science. It's not even wrong.

Besides being secret and likely buggy, any simulation of the climate necessarily incomplete, i.e. it omits quite a lot of phenomena. Complex systems are fundamentally non-amenable to simulation, but in this case, the results of the "simulation" are garbage squared, because they're "simulations" of some system that doesn't even exist.

This is the kind of stuff being passed off as science these days.