Is Climate Science Pseudo-science?

An interesting post by co2 is life (via Climate Depot)

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

The graphic says all that is needed, however, the article goes into further detail

Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effect and solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.

Head over to read them all. If you can continue to state that climate science from Warmists is science, well, you’re too wrapped up in your narrow, cult-like, political views. And you still can’t prove that mankind’s release of CO2 is the cause of this warm period, which is a very mild warm period, compared to other Holocene warm periods.

Let’s consider the 2nd and last bullet points on the list, hostile towards criticism and dogmatic and unyielding. Remember when I told you that science teachers were being sent a book on skeptical climate science?

(Washington Times) Three ranking House Democrats on Monday urged teachers to throw away copies of a book written by climate scientists challenging the catastrophic global-warming view, saying the nation’s schools are “inappropriate” forums for such a discussion.

The Democratic blast at “climate deniers” came in response to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute to distribute free DVDs and copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

Science should be open. Scientists should be willing to consider alternative viewpoints. It doesn’t mean they have to adopt them, but, if they’re afraid they might conflict with their current beliefs, so they shouldn’t even be considered, then those scientific beliefs are not science, they are politics and psuedo-religious.