Global warming. You cannot be certain.

It's bloody simple really. When you are constantly assailed by equal status papers contradicting each other, whether on the missing heat, extreme weather or glacier melting, it would be ridiculous for anyone to believe there was any sort of certainty or continuity in the underlying material. Instead you see a chaos of competing items, each trying harder than the last to insist it is the only true picture, but of course in science there is no room for alternative views like social sciences, but they either hit the target or miss it.

And besides the areas impossible to handle, like modelling clouds and aerosols, explaining dark matter or measuring gravity, most scientists will kill themselves rather than simply admit they don't really know something the public think they should. So they turn out anything they can to hope (quite realistically) the morsels of data will satisfy the ravenous public and politicians, while those of us with independent minds see straight through it, but intelligence by its nature is restricted to the tiny minority and those below will not accept a word from anyone outside the small community who make the rules and no one else.

Because most people are only exposed to the real 97%, ie that media material disposed to promoting the idea of man made warming, that is assumed to be 97% certain as some liars (it has been proved, so I am speaking the truth) claim. Had that been the case then we'd need many millions of scientists, as over 30,000 have signed a petition disagreeing, and hundreds specifically qualified in the climate areas do so as well. That won't happen where an area really is certain. Had the public had the same material found on many internet sites, and been given all the contradicting evidence on everything from the temperature to the narrower areas below, they would almost all think like me, it's all a bunch of chaotic speculation, where an idea originally a possible theory connecting a known lab experiment in a closed system with a recent correspondence of rising CO2 levels with rising temperatures got totally out of hand. The logical gaps, apparent to all who have studied the material and can think logically, are the same as any other cobbled together story, whether the alibi of a gang of thieves or rewritten Soviet history to make them and any other communist regime the winners, despite many people starving and being murdered. Only if you are unable to access the true material will anyone believe what they are told, otherwise a Soviet Russian visiting the west for the first time would be expecting to see some kind of third world wilderness, as under communism their lives were said to be the best possible by their leaders, knowing few would have the chance to find out otherwise, as their travel and information abilities were severely controlled and curtailed, much as present day North Korea.

Looking at the most extreme totalitarian regimes explains what happens elsewhere at a subtler scale. The same mechanisms are put in place, most people believe what they are told, and the media are somehow persuaded to keep an almost united front. But it's rubbish, and like building a house on mineworks or quicksand it'll come down sooner or later, as the claims are based on nothing at all.

If even one qualified scientist can explain why a theory is wrong then it's wrong. Hundreds have here, they couldn't do it if it wasn't. Or provide contradictive articles and data for every single parameter within the climate. That's not possible in science, only propaganda and lies.