Global warming v. science

The problem with global warming theory is, and always has been, that the scientific consensus (an oxymoron) is not really science. The data is cherry picked and incomplete, and then in order to create a forward looking climate model, it is pushed into computer models that must assume facts that are not only unknown, but unknowable. The variables of climate are almost infinite, certainly too large to control for in any meaningful way.

Climate modelers promote modeled findings of climate in 100 years as given fact. These very models have been inaccurate over the last decade. Meteorological modeling becomes problematic after a 24 hour period, yet climate modelers express confidence in there 100 year models.

Michael Crichton, who was a scientist, discusses the problems with global warming consensus, and the science in general. This speech does not so much question warming, which may indeed be happening, and may be the fault of man, but questions the scientific method, and the reason for scientists promoting the theory.

As to the modeling, he says:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

This is succinct and to the point. What was unknown in 1900 regarding 2000 is probably several orders of magnitude less than what is unknown about 2100 from 2000.