What Is Climate Change?

[Deluge]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

No what you said is a misinformed opinion. Consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process.

Consensus is also a fundamental part of political agendas, which is why we don't trust them. Stick to the science, or go over there and pound sand. 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

No what you said is a misinformed opinion. Consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process.

 

Consensus is no part of the scientific process. At all. In fact it's the antithesis of science

Science only moves forward because somebody comes along and says that the previously accepted science is wrong. If that wasn't true we would still be using Newtonian models for the movement of objects.

And if there is such a huge body of science to suggest that climate change is a crisis then why have you never been able to produce any?

[Goddess]

Canada is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Australia is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Finland is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Africa is warming faster than the rest of the world.

New England is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Israel is warming faster than the world.

China is warming faster than the rest of the world.

The South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world.

At some point, ordinary people ask a simple question: How can every region be warming faster than every other region?

Yes, regions can warm at different rates. Yes, local climate dynamics matter. But when the media turns every regional study into the same fear headline, it stops looking like careful science communication and starts looking like narrative management.

Trust is not destroyed by skepticism.

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Canada is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Australia is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Finland is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Africa is warming faster than the rest of the world.

New England is warming faster than the rest of the world.

Israel is warming faster than the world.

China is warming faster than the rest of the world.

The South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world.

At some point, ordinary people ask a simple question: How can every region be warming faster than every other region?

Yes, regions can warm at different rates. Yes, local climate dynamics matter. But when the media turns every regional study into the same fear headline, it stops looking like careful science communication and starts looking like narrative management.

Trust is not destroyed by skepticism.

Left-wing hysteria is what's heating up the fastest. 

[WestCanMan]

Manmade climate change is what caused 60% of Florida's population relocate due to flooding, in case you missed it.

Oh, wait, that was just another one of the endless doom-and-gloom scenarios that never played out.

 

Let me try again...

Anthropogenic climate change is the sudden warming of planet earth due to greenhouse gas emissions arising from man's burning of fossil fuels, which trap warm air by the earth's surface. Concerned citizens like Leo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, John Kerry, Mark Zuckerberg frequently pontificate about our need to reduce our carbon footprint from their yachts, private jets, and multiple mansions, while they're burning more carbon in 1 hour than the average person burns in a year. (right now Mark Zuckerberg is up in the Powell River area, with TWO mega-yachts: one that he is staying on and an even larger one that carries his supplies and toys. But he still wants you to remember that you're a piece of crap if you are driving a car)

 

Hold on, one last try...

Manmade climate change is that thing that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted to lying about. And they also got caught trying to suppress dissenting viewpoints in order to create the illusion of total consensus, which left4rds on this forum still cite to this day.

But just because the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is lying and suppressing the truth, doesn't mean that they're not telling the uhhhhhh, truth. Ahem. Well, they're really honest compared to the Dems and Liberals. So there's that.  

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Left-wing hysteria is what's heating up the fastest. 

If the temperature drops 1 degree below the boiling point, they feel like they're freezing to death. 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Manmade climate change is what caused 60% of Florida's population relocate due to flooding, in case you missed it.

Oh, wait, that was just another one of the endless doom-and-gloom scenarios that never played out.

 

Let me try again...

Anthropogenic climate change is the sudden warming of planet earth due to greenhouse gas emissions arising from man's burning of fossil fuels, which trap warm air by the earth's surface. Concerned citizens like Leo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, John Kerry, Mark Zuckerberg frequently pontificate about our need to reduce our carbon footprint from their yachts, private jets, and multiple mansions, while they're burning more carbon in 1 hour than the average person burns in a year. (right now Mark Zuckerberg is up in the Powell River area, with TWO mega-yachts: one that he is staying on and an even larger one that carries his supplies and toys. But he still wants you to remember that you're a piece of crap if you are driving a car)

 

Hold on, one last try...

Manmade climate change is that thing that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted to lying about. And they also got caught trying to suppress dissenting viewpoints in order to create the illusion of total consensus, which left4rds on this forum still cite to this day.

But just because the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is lying and suppressing the truth, doesn't mean that they're not telling the uhhhhhh, truth. Ahem. Well, they're really honest compared to the Dems and Liberals. So there's that.  

The left doesn't have a conscience which explains their affinity for consensus. "How can they refute it when we already have consensus?". 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If the temperature drops 1 degree below the boiling point, they feel like they're freezing to death. 

And that the world is now saddled with irreversible global cooling devastation. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Consensus is also a fundamental part of political agendas, which is why we don't trust them. Stick to the science, or go over there and pound sand. 

Agreed, but I would say that "the illusion of consensus is manufactured by the IPCC", and those of us who aren't cultists are fully aware of that....  

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Agreed, but I would say that "the illusion of consensus is manufactured by the IPCC", and those of us who aren't cultists are fully aware of that....  

Well, it is an arm of the UN, so that explains the stench of inflamed woke. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Science progresses through empirical testing, observation, and falsification, not by majority vote or political negotiation. 

That's right, majority votes and political negotiation have nothing to do with consensus.

Since you seem to insist a vote did take place could you should be able to provide some of that empirical testing, observation, and falsification you're talking about and prove it.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Consensus is also a fundamental part of political agendas, which is why we don't trust them. Stick to the science, or go over there and pound sand. 

I don't trust political agendas either...so we're in consensus. See how it works?  Science is how to undermine political agendas - its a lot more effective than pounding sand.

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I don't trust political agendas either...so we're in consensus. See how it works?  Science is how to undermine political agendas - its a lot more effective than pounding sand.

"Science" has been hijacked by left-wing lunatics, therefore, the community is infested with political consensus. It's better that we trust our own eyes, instead. Science can be one of many reference points, but in the end we trust our own conclusions, and my conclusion is that the Earth is fine and you are full of shit. 

See how that works? 

[Legato]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right, majority votes and political negotiation have nothing to do with consensus.

Since you seem to insist a vote did take place could you should be able to provide some of that empirical testing, observation, and falsification you're talking about and prove it.

You said "No what you said is a misinformed opinion. Consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process".

I said "Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Science progresses through empirical testing, observation, and falsification, not by majority vote or political negotiation".

Make up your mind.

Do your goalposts have Turbo charging?

[WestCanMan]

Here's the AI summary of Climategate:

• "Climategate" was the biggest scientific scandal of the modern climate era.
• It erupted in November 2009—just weeks before a major UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen—when an anonymous hacker broke into the servers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. [1, 2, 3]
  The hacker leaked over 1,000 private emails and documents belonging to top international climate scientists. Many of these scientists were core contributors to the IPCC's assessment reports. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  The leaked files provided a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the exact institutional behaviors we discussed earlier: a deep resistance to outside criticism, defensive gatekeeping, and highly questionable data presentation. []
  The controversy centers on three main issues exposed by the leak:
  1. "Hide the Decline" and "Mike's Nature Trick"
  The most damaging piece of the leak was a 1999 email from the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, where he wrote about completing "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in a set of temperature data. [1]
• The Skeptics' View: Critics argued this was a clear, "smoking gun" admission that scientists were actively fabricating data to hide a modern cooling trend and keep the public panicked. [1]
• The Scientists' Explanation: They argued "trick" simply meant a clever mathematical or statistical technique [to make the data appear to show what they wanted it to]. The "decline" didn't refer to real-world temperatures dropping, but rather a known flaw in tree-ring data. After 1960, tree rings mysteriously stopped tracking accurately with thermometer readings. [1, 2]
• The Deception [deception is a form of lying]: To make the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" look smooth and dramatic for a Nature magazine cover, scientists deleted the unreliable post-1960 tree-ring data and spliced real thermometer data onto the end of the line. While scientifically explained in the fine print of technical papers, doing it cleanly on a public graph without a clear warning label looked like intentional data manipulation to the public. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• 2. Deleting Data and Avoiding Freedom of Information (FOI)
  The emails exposed a toxic, hostile attitude toward independent auditors and climate skeptics who were trying to double-check the scientists' work. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Scientists were caught explicitly discussing how to delete emails and data to avoid handing them over to critics making legal Freedom of Information requests. [1, 2, 3]
• In one email, a scientist admitted he would rather destroy his historical climate data than give it to a prominent critic who wanted to audit his algorithms.
• 3. "Gatekeeping" the Peer-Review System
  The leaks confirmed exactly what critics meant when they alleged a coordinated effort to suppress dissenting opinions. [1, 2]
• Top scientists discussed how to bully scientific journals that dared to publish papers written by skeptical researchers.
• In one exchange, scientists talked about blacklisting an academic journal, ousting its editor, and ensuring that certain dissenting peer-reviewed papers were completely left out of the upcoming IPCC reports, regardless of their scientific merit. [1, 2]

 

At the end of the day, we all need to remember that IPCC scientists have been known to go with "regardless of scientific merit" as their guiding principal.

42 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The left doesn't have a conscience which explains their affinity for consensus. "How can they refute it when we already have consensus?". 

Artificial/assumed consensus is the north star for all fascists.

[WestCanMan]

40 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And that the world is now saddled with irreversible global cooling devastation. 

It's always "global something" lol.

Today: "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Tomorrow: "THE SKY IS RISING!"

[Nationalist]

Why do people allow themselves to get so nasty?

There has NEVER been a prediction that has come to pass. Not even those infamous "bigger storms". Its all based off worst case scenarios wrapped in wild conjecture. Now its been admitted...finally...that real "scientists" never claimed anything but an observable slight increase of the overall global temperature. They have NOT declared...

"AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!"

Yet these climate freaks continue to drive fuel prices up, which drives the cost of everything else up.

That's just down right nasty.

[Deluge]

28 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's always "global something" lol.

Today: "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Tomorrow: "THE SKY IS RISING!"

Next week: "the sky is CLOSING!"

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

That's right, majority votes and political negotiation have nothing to do with consensus.

 

Consensus has nothing to do with science. It was once the consensus of all learned and wise people that the earth was flat. Pretty much everyone told Galileo that he was nuts when he tried to explain how far away the stars must be.

Consensus is not science

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, Deluge said:

"Science" has been hijacked by left-wing lunatics, therefore, the community is infested with political consensus. It's better that we trust our own eyes, instead. Science can be one of many reference points, but in the end we trust our own conclusions, and my conclusion is that the Earth is fine and you are full of shit. 

See how that works? 

Sure, I can see millions of trees dying of drought in the rain forest I live in where there have never been droughts of this scale since before the last ice age. I can see thousands of whales have disappeared because the whale's food can't adapt to a lack of sea ice due to a warming ocean.  I can drive boats thru areas that are now barren of kelp forests due to a more acidic warmer ocean - made worse for the same reason, by the disappearance of sea stars up and down the coast that are vital to the health and structural integrity of kelp forests.

I can also hear what local scientists I know are saying about why and the consensus is AGW.

Maybe you don't have scientists in the biogeoclimatic zone you live in or your're to young to appreciate the changes to it. Maybe you live in a city and don't get out much. There's probably a scientific reason. Perhaps the field of agnotology can provide it. 

 

[Goddess]

Earth's climate has always been dynamic and changing.  And it operates independently of any single variable.

We are coming out of The Little Ice Age, we are supposed to warm up.

History has always shown that warmth delivers prosperity.  Cold spells always bring hardship.

The Holocene Era was a rollercoaster, but both the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warm Period were marked by booming agriculture and expanding empires.  And that is the paradox not addressed by the climate fanatics - Why are ancient warm periods celebrated as golden eras, but today's mild shifts are framed as catastrophic?

Instead of destroying our economic engines, isn't there a better way of managing earth's changing temperatures and adapting using our incredible technological capabilities?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

I said "Consensus is not part of the scientific method.

And you're wrong.

Quote

Science progresses through empirical testing, observation, and falsification, not by majority vote or political negotiation".

And you're right.

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Make up your mind.

I have.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Consensus has nothing to do with science. It was once the consensus of all learned and wise people that the earth was flat. Pretty much everyone told Galileo that he was nuts when he tried to explain how far away the stars must be.

Consensus is not science

That's right in Galileo's case the consensus against him was strictly political and religious - like your's, it was based on the inability to admit it was wrong.

[Legato]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And you're wrong.

And you're right.

I have.

I'm right.

Yes

Have not.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Legato said:

I'm right.

Have you sought the opinion of any scientists or are you just going with your own feeling?

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

Have not.

Why, what did you base your choice on - did you try something like this?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.^[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

BTW, you won't find any mention of voting on what facts or theories win. That's up to science.