The fine issue of 'no evidence'

 

And here is the article from the guard saying there is no evidence of no evidence.  

When somebody comes up with a wacky statement, all the Scientific Method can say is 'no evidence'.  I always found that lacking.  And when Japan investigates nuclear plants, they say 'no evidence' of stupidity.  Same as the Kremlin and planes that are shot down.

These physicists are destroyed by the howling mob.  They accuse the physicists of 'cherry picking' for no evidence, when the warmie evidence is cherry picked to the extreme.  If you have the mob at your back, you can do no wrong, until they howl for your blood.

This debate is wrong because it settles on 'existence'.  That is, does an obscure situation exist or not?  You cannot debate that God exists or doesn't, simply because there is no evidence either way.  The debate should move over to the 'usefulness' of the assertion.  Are we getting accurate long-term forecasts or not?  

The advocates of clange have done nothing useful.  All their great 'solutions' are a disaster.  Their forecasts are garbage.  Is Elvis Nino coming or not?  Is it useful to find forest fires, and heat wave in obscure places?  Did anybody specifically predict this?  

ps.  the added wrinkle here is that the Powers have squashed all physics that might clarify the situation, knowing that a speck of physics will bring the whole thing down.  That's like the advocates of 'flat Earth' stopping all ships, or the boss of phrenology stopping all medical research.  So, all we have is a stumble to the future, wondering why it is getting so cold, while the media finds a remote valley that is warm for a day.

pps. something for 'No rain in Spain' guy.

Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Dryville—the bastard shoved his tongue down her throat.