"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[Crick]

Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals? Some of your skeptics have gotten published. Have they convinced anyone? Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?

I couldn’t care less what Mann does or doesn’t do. Your nonsensical consensus arguments hold no sway with me. That’s not how science works.

It is how science works.

 

[ding]

It is how science works.

Incorrect. Arguing the science is settled is the antithesis of science.

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. Arguing the science is settled is the antithesis of science.

Do you suggest that nothing is settled in all of science? The germ theory of disease? Newtonian gravity? Special and General Relativity? Quantum theory? The laws of thermodynamics? The buoyancy principle? Evolution? Atomic theory? The kinetic theory of gases? Cell theory? If you believe any of those are settled, tell me WHY.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not exactly. This explains it best.

The video is lying ... Kepler's Laws require the semi-major axis remain constant ... thus the apsides are also constant, and the apsides line up with the solstices (within 15º of arc) ... any changes to the distance between the Earth and Sun will occur at the semi-minor axes ... at the equinoxes ...

As I said, this calculates to 10,000 km today ... less than one Earth diameter ... I'll leave it to you to calculate the difference in insolation ... we're not currently using thermometers that can measure that little of a change ...

[shakes head] ... you ... yourself ... proved this as an exam question ... in your first college math class ... back in the 1850's ... just how much pot do you smoke every day? ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals? Some of your skeptics have gotten published. Have they convinced anyone? Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?

Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals?

Do you believe he didn't try to stop skeptics from getting published?

Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?

Has there ever been an honest poll? Are there any repercussions for the wrong answer?

 

[Crick]

Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals?

Do you believe he didn't try to stop skeptics from getting published?

I believe he mentioned that doing so would be in the public's best interest. I have never heard, however, a single piece of evidence as to him actually DOING anything along those lines. If you have, please tell us about it.

Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?

Has there ever been an honest poll? Are there any repercussions for the wrong answer?

There have been numerous completely reliable polls, surveys and studies. That you don't like the answers they give is obvious. That you think THAT, in and of itself, is reason to doubt them, is disappointingly Trump-like of you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe he mentioned that doing so would be in the public's best interest. I have never heard, however, a single piece of evidence as to him actually DOING anything along those lines. If you have, please tell us about it.



There have been numerous completely reliable polls, surveys and studies. That you don't like the answers they give is obvious. That you think THAT, in and of itself, is reason to doubt them, is disappointingly Trump-like of you.

I believe he mentioned that doing so would be in the public's best interest.

Of course. When the science is on your side it's in the public's best interest to
censor dissent.

There have been numerous completely reliable polls, surveys and studies.

Reliable polls on the IPCC? Link?

That you don't like the answers they give is obvious.

Any peer pressure? Any cancel culture?

That you think THAT, in and of itself, is reason to doubt them, is disappointingly Trump-like of you.

Stop it! You're killing me. I'm gonna hurt myself laughing.

 

[Crick]

I believe he mentioned that doing so would be in the public's best interest.

Of course. When the science is on your side it's in the public's best interest to
censor dissent.

There have been numerous completely reliable polls, surveys and studies.

Reliable polls on the IPCC? Link?

That you don't like the answers they give is obvious.

Any peer pressure? Any cancel culture?

That you think THAT, in and of itself, is reason to doubt them, is disappointingly Trump-like of you.

Stop it! You're killing me. I'm gonna hurt myself laughing.

I stand by everything I've said here. If you want to see good poll results, see the Wikipedia article to which you've been linked dozens of times. You might actually read it this time: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I stand by everything I've said here. If you want to see good poll results, see the Wikipedia article to which you've been linked dozens of times. You might actually read it this time: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Any peer pressure? Any cancel culture?

 

[Crick]

Any peer pressure? Any cancel culture?

No. When are you going to admit that the reason there is a consensus is that the fucking science is simply overwhelming?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 703406

Great! SO even if we abandoned this NET ZERO insanity, it is going to happen anyway? So why are we doing this bullshit?

Science!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. When are you going to admit that the reason there is a consensus is that the fucking science is simply overwhelming?

No peer pressure to support AGW?

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is how science works.

No, it's not!

 

[Crick]

No peer pressure to support AGW?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Do you accept or reject that there is overwhelming evidence supporting AGW? The peer pressure you see because you want to see it. You have no objective evidence telling you it exists and, as you would have it, widespread, pervasive and unconquerable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you accept or reject that there is overwhelming evidence supporting AGW? The peer pressure you see because you want to see it. You have no objective evidence telling you it exists and, as you would have it, widespread, pervasive and unconquerable.

Do you reject the idea that publically expresing doubt in the current AGW doctrine can kill your career?

 

[ding]

Do you suggest that nothing is settled in all of science? The germ theory of disease? Newtonian gravity? Special and General Relativity? Quantum theory? The laws of thermodynamics? The buoyancy principle? Evolution? Atomic theory? The kinetic theory of gases? Cell theory? If you believe any of those are settled, tell me WHY.

Science is never settled. It is always subject to change.

 

[Crick]

Science is never settled. It is always subject to change.

First, let me point out that being settled science does NOT mean it is not subject to change. Consider the cosmological theory that held the expansion of the universe must be slowing down due to the gravity of all the matter. That was settled science. It took about 18 months to overthrow it. Refutational studies were published. There probably was some peer pressure not to change things, but they got changed anyway. Settled science is not inviolate science.

So you think none of those theories are settled science. Would it surprise you to hear that the vast majority of real scientists think they are settled? Hopefully not. Then we have the question as to why they think them settled. What do you think? Why do most scientists think those theories are settled science?

 

[ding]

First, let me point out that being settled science does NOT mean it is not subject to change. Consider the cosmological theory that held the expansion of the universe must be slowing down due to the gravity of all the matter. That was settled science. It took about 18 months to overthrow it. Refutational studies were published. There probably was some peer pressure not to change things, but they got changed anyway. Settled science is not inviolate science.

So you think none of those theories are settled science. Would it surprise you to hear that the vast majority of real scientists think they are settled? Hopefully not. Then we have the question as to why they think them settled. What do you think? Why do most scientists think those theories are settled science?

That’s nice. If you are arguing the science is settled then your science isn’t open to change.

 

[Crick]

That’s nice. If you are arguing the science is settled then your science isn’t open to change.

That has never been my position and you will find nothing I have ever said to support your charge. But neither you nor your fellow deniers have ever managed to falsify AGW. If you do, the accepted theory will change just as all astronomers now believe the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Until you do, however, AGW is the very widely accepted theory describing the behavior of our climate in the face of human GHG emissions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But neither you nor your fellow deniers have ever managed to falsify AGW.

It's unfalsifiable.
More water...AGW
Less water...AGW
Stronger hurricanes...AGW
No hurricanes...AGW
Just regular hurricanes...AGW
Hotter...AGW
Winter vortex...AGW
Wildfires...AGW
Hordes of illegal aliens crossing our borders...AGW