Nature Rules. Computer Models Follow

The "science" of global warming is based upon computer model predictions. Can these computer models predict what nature will do to maintain its equilibrium? Einstein recognized the need to compensate for the differences in time between satellites and people on earth. Else GPS systems would mislead them. Where is the role of nature cooling itself, warming itself when needed that is built into the "science" of computer modeling? Geologists and astronomers observe that weather patterns and earth temperatures go through 40,000 year cycles. Are there "scientific" computer models based on these cycles? "The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." and "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken



http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151205/NEWS/151207477

EDITORIAL: Setting climate goals, promises
Posted Dec. 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Settled Science Useful Idiots Censor Scrutiny of Science

AlGore's movie quoted numerous scientists, friends, but none of them appeared. No astronomer is quoted. In his book The Life of Super-Earths, Harvard University astronomer, Dimitar Sasselov explains that weather patterns go in 40,000 year cycles. Geologists show periods of heating and cooling weather changes to the environment of the planet over billions of years. With minimal ranges using computer models, useful idiot, elitist, moralist, scientists demand they know what others fear to assert.

See Sasselov's 22 minute video here
http://youtu.be/F8bM8K7W_R8

[From article]
According to their dogma, it’s blasphemous to oppose giving unaccountable bureaucrats (in the EPA or internationally) unprecedented power to centrally plan and control economic life without even a vote of Congress.
That’s because the faithful overlook the stunning failure of their doomsday-predicting models to forecast warming’s nearly 18-year pause (confirmed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or Al Gore’s 2007 prediction that polar bears’ Arctic habitat would be ice-free by 2013.

[. . .]

Today, skepticism is synonymous with greed and immorality to church adherents who bask in the influence and profits they derive from sermonizing and policy advocacy. Yet, they ignore the “inconvenient truth” that their policies adversely impact the lifestyles of the budget conscience.
So, who are the heretics?
Are they alarmists intent on circumventing scientific inquiry and the free and open debate on which national consensus in a pluralistic democracy depends, or skeptics “not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead,” as Thomas Jefferson encouraged?
“It is error alone which needs the support of government,” Jefferson believed, because “truth can stand by itself.”
In his farewell address, noteworthy for military-industrial-complex warnings, President Dwight Eisenhower articulated the modern version of Jefferson’s concern. “A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity,” he said, and “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/12965067-113/climate-policies-sturm-think

Sturm: Inconvenient truths denied by climate faithful
Melanie Sturm
Think Again
September 11, 2014