The UNs scientist admits they are wrong about climate change

[West]

[robosmith]

28 minutes ago, West said:

A "Truth" from Trump means absolutely NOHTING except that you've been CONNED AGAIN.

Quote

While the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has faced criticism for specific errors and overly apocalyptic scenarios, its core conclusion—that human activity is driving significant global warming—remains supported by the vast majority of climate data and scientific consensus. 

The Christian Science Monitor +2

Critics often point to historical inaccuracies, such as the 2010 retraction of a claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. More recently, scientific committees have phased out the most extreme high-emissions scenarios (like RCP8.5) as "implausible," narrowing the window of predicted catastrophic outcomes. 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (.gov) +4

 

---

 

🔍 Key Areas of Debate

The perception that the UN was "wrong" typically stems from three distinct categories of issues:

• Documented Technical Errors: Occasionally, peer-reviewed reports contain specific factual mistakes (e.g., the Himalayan glacier error) that the IPCC must later correct.
• Predictive Uncertainty: Climate models are complex. Some older, "primitive" models from the 1970s and 80s made specific timing errors, though their general warming trends were often correct.
• Scenario Refinements: Scientific experts recently discarded the most "apocalyptic" worst-case scenarios, moving toward a more realistic outlook of approximately 3.5°C warming by 2100 rather than 4.5°C+. 
  Roger Pielke Jr. | Substack·The Honest Broker +4

 

---

 

⚖️ Differing Perspectives

 

Perspective	Core Argument	Source Examples
Scientific Consensus	Core warming trends are accurate; models are refined as more data arrives.	NASA / IPCC
Skeptical View	Failed doomsday predictions undermine the UN's credibility and cause economic harm.	CEI / AEI
Moderate/Economic	Focus should shift from "prevention" (futile) to "adaptation" and innovation.	Bjorn Lomborg

 

---

 

🌍 Real-World Accuracy Check

While specific dates (like "ice-free by 2014") have proven incorrect, many long-term trends have materialized:

• Temperature Rise: Observations since 2004 have closely matched UN model predictions.
• Ocean Impacts: Sea levels and ocean temperatures continue to rise at rates consistent with UN warnings.
• Public Opinion: While some see "alarmism," others argue the UN has been too cautious in identifying "tipping points". 
  The Guardian +4

To explore these topics further, you can attend local educational events like the Science Media Literacy Workshop at UC San Diego or join the North County Climate Change Alliance gathering. 

 

[West]

Robo has been taken in by the climate hoax scam. Sad

[robosmith]

Just now, West said:

Robo has been taken in by the climate hoax scam. Sad

Say's the ^lDIOT who has ZERO college level scientific education.

And believes random tweets from the pathological LIAR Trump. LMAO

[Legato]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Say's the ^lDIOT who has ZERO college level scientific education.

And believes random tweets from the pathological LIAR Trump. LMAO

You do realise that "consensus" is the antithesis of science, do you?

[West]

27 minutes ago, Legato said:

You do realise that "consensus" is the antithesis of science, do you?

Certainly under Barry the consensus generally referred to scientists who were feeding the regime talking points to be weaponized in elections in exchange for taxpayer funded grants. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

You do realise that "consensus" is the antithesis of science, do you?

Because you say so? LMAO

IF you bothered to try to find EVIDENCE for your flippant irrelevancy, you would find it's irrelevant.

Quote

You have touched on one of the most debated and fascinating ideas in the philosophy of science. The tension between embracing consensus and encouraging radical skepticism is precisely what drives scientific progress.

It helps to break this down into two distinct concepts: consensus as a tool of authority, versus consensus as the byproduct of evidence. 

 

---

 

🚫 Why Consensus Can Be the Antithesis of Science

Historically, some of the greatest breakthroughs in human history occurred when a lone genius rejected the established consensus.

• The Appeal to Authority: Science is not a democracy. A claim does not become true simply because a majority of people—or even a majority of experts—agree with it.
• The Danger of Dogma: If a field becomes too attached to its current consensus, it risks becoming rigid. This can cause scientists to dismiss valid, paradigm-shifting anomalies as mere errors.
• The Principle of Falsifiability: As philosopher Karl Popper argued, a theory can never be definitively proven true; it can only be proven false. Science requires that we constantly try to disprove our own assumptions. 

 

---

 

🤝 Why Consensus is Essential to Scientific Progress

While consensus shouldn't be the goal of science, it frequently acts as the starting point for new research. 

• Building on Foundations: Science is collaborative and cumulative. A working consensus (like the germ theory of disease or the structure of DNA) gives scientists a reliable foundation. If every scientist had to re-prove the laws of physics from scratch every morning, no new discoveries would ever be made.
• Independent Verification: When thousands of scientists across different labs, using different methods, arrive at the same conclusion, that consensus is a measure of the reliability of the data. 

 

---

 

⚖️ The Distinction: Consensus vs. "Settled Science"

In a healthy scientific community, consensus is always provisional. It is the best explanation we have based on current evidence. 

Science writer and physicist Ethan Siegel beautifully described this dynamic: Science is not defined by consensus, but by curiosity. The greatest scientists are always willing to abandon a consensus if new, verifiable data contradicts it. 

However, ignoring a massive, evidence-based scientific consensus in favor of a fringe theory without bringing forward extraordinary new evidence is not inherently "doing science." It is simply ignoring the existing body of work.

The FACT that CO2 causes atmospheric WARMING is proven in the laboratory and undisputed because atmospheric temperatures are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentrations througout HISTORY.

What we have is consensus as a byproduct of EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE.

If you don't believe it, I suggest you visit Venus.

 

1 hour ago, West said:

Certainly under Barry the consensus generally referred to scientists who were feeding the regime talking points to be weaponized in elections in exchange for taxpayer funded grants. 

Too bad all you have is ^this speculation unsupported by ANY evidence. LMAO

[John Johnston]

Lmao. It's way too early for this, this morning. Damn! spilled my coffee on my keyboard reading some of these Idi@ts comments. I spose I needed a good laugh today though. 🤣🤣🤣

[Legato]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because you say so? LMAO

IF you bothered to try to find EVIDENCE for your flippant irrelevancy, you would find it's irrelevant.

The FACT that CO2 causes atmospheric WARMING is proven in the laboratory and undisputed because atmospheric temperatures are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentrations througout HISTORY.

What we have is consensus as a byproduct of EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE.

If you don't believe it, I suggest you visit Venus.

 

Too bad all you have is ^this speculation unsupported by ANY evidence. LMAO

Like I said....Antithesis.

From your article.....

Historically, some of the greatest breakthroughs in human history occurred when a lone genius rejected the established consensus.

 

[Nationalist]

Well wha'd'ya know. They've finally admitted the truth. Ahhh...the greenies must be gnashing their teeth over this. Poor Tweenkies.

[Barquentine]

12 hours ago, West said:

Robo has been taken in by the climate hoax scam. Sad

West has been taken in by Trump's climate hoax scam. Sad

[Barquentine]

53 minutes ago, Legato said:

Like I said....Antithesis.

From your article.....

Historically, some of the greatest breakthroughs in human history occurred when a lone genius rejected the established consensus.

Doesn't matter what one scientist says.

It's what these guys say:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-do-we-deal-with-the-catastrophe-of-uninsurability

"You won’t meet a single insurance or reinsurance CEO who doesn’t believe in climate change,’ the insurance investor and former Lombard Insurance CEO James Orford told me. ‘They see it in the numbers – a combination of more extreme, less predictable events, combined with big losses of sums insured. All the modelling suggests these are uninsurable risks.’

 2024 was a turning point as several insurers ceased issuing new policies because of fire-associated risks, including the United States’ biggest property insurer, State Farm, which cancelled policies in parts of Los Angeles. It is all too easy to view this cynically, but it’s happening because property insurers have been reporting year-on-year losses from climate change-related payouts.

When insurers depart, so do the banks that lend money for mortgages, which means the value of properties in the redlined areas crashes and the economy there goes into a downward spiral, which is disastrous for individual homeowners and for their communities.

in February 2025, the US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell noted that banks and insurance companies were ‘pulling out of areas, coastal areas and … areas where there are a lot of fires’. 

Florida intervened through its Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to cover areas abandoned by private insurers, and they also launched their Reinsurance to Assist Policyholders programme to encourage insurers not to leave. In addition, the state pays up to $300,000 per property if an insurer goes bankrupt. Florida also poured money into flood mitigation (barriers, storm-surge defences, stronger building codes, better drainage systems, sea walls),"

[Nationalist]

23 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Doesn't matter what one scientist says.

It's what these guys say:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-do-we-deal-with-the-catastrophe-of-uninsurability

"You won’t meet a single insurance or reinsurance CEO who doesn’t believe in climate change,’ the insurance investor and former Lombard Insurance CEO James Orford told me. ‘They see it in the numbers – a combination of more extreme, less predictable events, combined with big losses of sums insured. All the modelling suggests these are uninsurable risks.’

 2024 was a turning point as several insurers ceased issuing new policies because of fire-associated risks, including the United States’ biggest property insurer, State Farm, which cancelled policies in parts of Los Angeles. It is all too easy to view this cynically, but it’s happening because property insurers have been reporting year-on-year losses from climate change-related payouts.

When insurers depart, so do the banks that lend money for mortgages, which means the value of properties in the redlined areas crashes and the economy there goes into a downward spiral, which is disastrous for individual homeowners and for their communities.

in February 2025, the US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell noted that banks and insurance companies were ‘pulling out of areas, coastal areas and … areas where there are a lot of fires’. 

Florida intervened through its Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to cover areas abandoned by private insurers, and they also launched their Reinsurance to Assist Policyholders programme to encourage insurers not to leave. In addition, the state pays up to $300,000 per property if an insurer goes bankrupt. Florida also poured money into flood mitigation (barriers, storm-surge defences, stronger building codes, better drainage systems, sea walls),"

Hilarious.

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY SAYS! OUR INSURANCE AGENTS WILL MAKE SURE YOU PAY!"

As the Libbie shows off his willingness to destroy for nothing more that his hatred.

"FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!"

Twits...

[Legato]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because you say so? LMAO

IF you bothered to try to find EVIDENCE for your flippant irrelevancy, you would find it's irrelevant.

The FACT that CO2 causes atmospheric WARMING is proven in the laboratory and undisputed because atmospheric temperatures are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentrations througout HISTORY.

What we have is consensus as a byproduct of EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE.

If you don't believe it, I suggest you visit Venus.

 

Too bad all you have is ^this speculation unsupported by ANY evidence. LMAO

They said follow the science, which I did and found nothing.

Then I followed the money and found the science.

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, West said:

Robo has been taken in by the climate hoax scam. Sad

Robo was taken in by those ads in the backs of comics that promised you could have an entire family of trained sea monkeys living with you for just a dollar twenty-five.   I think at this pointthe fact that he was taken in by climate change fanatics is perhaps less surprising than you seem to be suggesting 

Edited May 17 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Robo was taken in by those ads in the backs of comics that promised you could have an entire family of trained sea monkeys living with you for just a dollar twenty-five.   I think at this point being shocked that he was taken in by climate change fanatics is perhaps less surprising than you seem to be suggesting 

 

 

 

For FACK'S SAKE....   he just sent me a dollar twenty-five. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Legato said:

Like I said....Antithesis.

From your article.....

Historically, some of the greatest breakthroughs in human history occurred when a lone genius rejected the established consensus.

 

But you didn't read MY POST which differentiates between consensus as a tool of authority, versus consensus as the byproduct of evidence. 

And you STILL don't understand the difference.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Well wha'd'ya know. They've finally admitted the truth. Ahhh...the greenies must be gnashing their teeth over this. Poor Tweenkies.

No one has contended that there were no errors in PREDICTIONS, dropout.

That MAY change the timing, but NOT the GENERAL PRINCIPLES NOR THREAT.

[Legato]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 consensus as a tool of authority, versus consensus as the byproduct of evidence. 

 

the consensus was fuelled by the need for "research" grants which would only be given if the "research" reached pre-determined conclusions supplied by the grant funding organisations.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hilarious.

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY SAYS! OUR INSURANCE AGENTS WILL MAKE SURE YOU PAY!"

As the Libbie shows off his willingness to destroy for nothing more that his hatred.

"FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!"

Twits...

And you KEEP ON displaying your IGNORANCE HERE again, like the dropout  you are.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

the consensus was fuelled by the need for "research" grants which would only be given if the "research" reached pre-determined conclusions supplied by the grant funding organisations.

You being a CYNICAL CLOWN means NOTHING except you don't understand the CLIMATE SCIENCE.

You don't even understand climate caused INSURANCE LOSSES.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You being a CYNICAL CLOWN means NOTHING except you don't understand the CLIMATE SCIENCE.

You don't even understand climate caused INSURANCE LOSSES.

It's known as "satisfactory outcomes will be required".

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, robosmith said:

A "Truth" from Trump means absolutely NOHTING except that you've been CONNED AGAIN.

 

The con is climate change. It's cold here - feels like March, not May. Perhaps you dumbasses will start pushing global cooling again. lol

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hilarious.

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY SAYS! OUR INSURANCE AGENTS WILL MAKE SURE YOU PAY!"

As the Libbie shows off his willingness to destroy for nothing more that his hatred.

"FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!"

Twits...

"Follow the science!"

And by "science,"you mean whatever your ignorant, orange Jesus posts on Twitter. 🙄

 

[gatomontes99]

I like how the IPCC admits their model was woefully inaccurate, trashed it and the left is like "See! That proves global warming!" 

The truth is, all of their models are woefully inaccurate. They make excuses, but reality does not jive with the science.