>>76
No, seriously. Read Popper.
If winters are more severe, it's because of "global warming." If winters are less severe, it's because of "global warming." If the aggregate climate data does not change, "renormalize" it until it does. Proclaim IMMINENT DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM if Whitey does not go back to the caves. Get caught making shit up with "hockey stick" graph. Deny it shamelessly. Hackers give your email archives out, showing you spending decades promising to "hide behind the non-disclosure agreement" and "finding a neat trick" to "hide the decline." Liberal newsmedia imposes total blackout. Apply for another government grant.
"climate science" is politics, not science.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." --Stephen Schneider, interview in "Discover" Magazine, October 1988
tl;dr if "cancer researchers" working for a tobacco company got publicly exposed engaging in this type of blatant lying and shenanigans, would you believe anything they had to say? no? why do you believe "climate science" cranks, then?