CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?
 
The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?
You seem to have forgotten the 1300's and the consensus on the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it..... Con-sensus; to con the senses... not a word used in real science.
 
The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?
You seem to have forgotten the 1300's and the consensus on the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it..... Con-sensus; to con the senses... not a word used in real science.

A consensus is simply a general agreement dude. Most climate scientists are in agreement and that's known as a consensus. It's not some science conspiracy. Most of them believe something similar based on their observations as scientists.
 
The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?
You seem to have forgotten the 1300's and the consensus on the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it..... Con-sensus; to con the senses... not a word used in real science.

A consensus is simply a general agreement dude. Most climate scientists are in agreement and that's known as a consensus. It's not some science conspiracy. Most of them believe something similar based on their observations as scientists.
The scientific method relies on facts that are observable, quantifiable, and repeatable. There is no room for "consensus". It either is or it is not based on the empirical facts.

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.
 
I have no data or evidence that supports reaching any sort of conclusion as to how much of a factor we humans are. And for my personal usage, I prefer to combine both effects, human and natural, under a single term - either global warming or climate change.
They are not the same and treating them as they are will only prolong the deception that most people are unable to see without clear definitions.
 
Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

con·sen·sus
[kənˈsensəs]
NOUN
  1. a general agreement.
IN science this word is not acceptable! PERIOD!

You either have the facts and evidence to support your claims or you do not. There is no wiggle room. Michael Mann, to this day, refuses to produce his facts. So he either doesn't have them or they do not conclude what he contends. In either event, it makes him unreliable as a source for anything.
 
IN science this word is not acceptable! PERIOD!

It is when most scientists are in general agreement about something. You know, because that's the definition of a consensus.
 
The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?
You seem to have forgotten the 1300's and the consensus on the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it..... Con-sensus; to con the senses... not a word used in real science.

A consensus is simply a general agreement dude. Most climate scientists are in agreement and that's known as a consensus. It's not some science conspiracy. Most of them believe something similar based on their observations as scientists.

Most climate scientists are in agreement that:

1. Climate change happens all the time. But how much and how fast and why is something they are not in agreement about. At all. Do we need to revisit the 97% consensus reports that are now more than 10 years old and have been totally debunked? Funny thing, I have not seen any more recent surveys that suggest that consensus is true, but I have seen some that suggest otherwise.

2. Anthropogenic activities could be one of the causes for climate change. But the primary or leading cause? NO, there's no consensus about that and plenty of skepticism, as there should be since the amount of climate change due to natural causes is unknown. Nor for that matter is the amount of climate change due to human activity. In fact, there are some climate scientists that theorize the anthropogenic effects on CC is actually quite minimal.

3. Skepticism in science is to be applauded and accepted until such time as scientific proof exists, which thus far is not the case.
 
Do we need to revisit the 97% consensus reports that are now more than 10 years old and have been totally debunked?

It wasn't "totally debunked" but the left did exaggerate.

The lie was that 97% of all scientists believe that humans are a critical threat to the environment.

The truth is that 97% of all climate scientists agree that humans are impacting the Earth's temperature to some extent. There is not a consensus on the extent, but a large majority do believe that it is moderate to severe.
 
Do we need to revisit the 97% consensus reports that are now more than 10 years old and have been totally debunked?

It wasn't "totally debunked" but the left did exaggerate.

The lie was that 97% of all scientists believe that humans are a critical threat to the environment.

The truth is that 97% of all climate scientists agree that humans are impacting the Earth's temperature to some extent. There is not a consensus on the extent, but a large majority do believe that it is moderate to severe.
Legates Et Al ripped your 97% lie up into little pieces. He went through and looked at every question proposed and found that generalities were used instead of specific questions. It was a sham from the word go.

Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

To add insult to injury Legates found that there were 11,944 papers looked at but only 97 were chosen to get the 97% number.. Cook can't do math either..

legates et al.webp
 
Got a more reputable website than wattsupwiththat.com?

I'm not interested in notrickzone.com either.

Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
 
Last edited:
Got a more reputable website than wattsupwiththat.com?

I'm not interested in notrickzone.com either.

Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
LOL You use a far left wing source to claim low factual reporting.. The site you use has been caught lying and fabricating for their agenda. WUWT is the most trusted site on the web for a reason.. Get over yourself..
 
WUWT is the most trusted site on the web

By who? You? :abgg2q.jpg:

Get over yourself..

If the stuff being said on those agenda driven blog websites you absorb your information from is legitimate it should be on more than just blog websites, but it's not. Does it really not bother you that so much of what you believe can only be found on fringe blogs with no standards for journalistic integrity?
 
Last edited:
why do they keep doubling down on their failures?

I don't think they failed so much as their models and predictions aren't perfect yet. If there was a bunch of evidence in their face screaming "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" they'd be examining and considering it. That's simply not reality though.

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2emissions have been about 25% above the business as usual scenario.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.


2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.

2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. See here.

Reality check: Only six years later, IPPC acknowledges that confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, and that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. See here, page 162.

2010 Dr. Morris Bender, from NOAA, and coauthors predict that “the U.S. Southeast and the Bahamas will be pounded by more very intense hurricanes in the coming decades due to global warming.” They say the strongest hurricanes may double in frequency. See here.

Reality check: After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected. NOAA U.S. Landfalling Tropical System index shows no increase, and in fact, a very unusual 11-year drought in strong hurricane US landfalls took place from 2005-2016. See NOAA statistics here.

IPCC AR5 (see here) states “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

Reality check: Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change. However, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) informs us that the Earth slowed down from the start of measurements in 1962 to 1972, and sped up between 1972 and 2005. Since 2006 it is slowing down again. It shows the same inconsistency as global warming. See here.

This is failure by any definition...and this is just the tip of the ice berg insofar as failed predictions go...so why don't they scrap the hypothesis and start work on a new one that doesn't have CO2 driving the climate?
 
If you were honest in your quest to understand you'd be seeking out scientists rather than spewing the same talking point over and over again to somebody that is telling you they're not going to engage due to not being a scientist. I will not entertain the idea that there is a global conspiracy in science.

Oh,..I do... I have posted email correspondence numerous times with top shelf climate scientists...

And if you aren't even able to discuss the topic, why are you here? Is it for no other purpose than to tell us to have faith in climate scientists because you do?
 
why do they keep doubling down on their failures?

I don't think they failed so much as their models and predictions aren't perfect yet. If there was a bunch of evidence in their face screaming "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" they'd be examining and considering it. That's simply not reality though.

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2emissions have been about 25% above the business as usual scenario.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.


2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.

2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. See here.

Reality check: Only six years later, IPPC acknowledges that confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, and that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. See here, page 162.

2010 Dr. Morris Bender, from NOAA, and coauthors predict that “the U.S. Southeast and the Bahamas will be pounded by more very intense hurricanes in the coming decades due to global warming.” They say the strongest hurricanes may double in frequency. See here.

Reality check: After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected. NOAA U.S. Landfalling Tropical System index shows no increase, and in fact, a very unusual 11-year drought in strong hurricane US landfalls took place from 2005-2016. See NOAA statistics here.

IPCC AR5 (see here) states “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

Reality check: Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change. However, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) informs us that the Earth slowed down from the start of measurements in 1962 to 1972, and sped up between 1972 and 2005. Since 2006 it is slowing down again. It shows the same inconsistency as global warming. See here.

This is failure by any definition...and this is just the tip of the ice berg insofar as failed predictions go...so why don't they scrap the hypothesis and start work on a new one that doesn't have CO2 driving the climate?

Why do you think the scientists are telling us something other than what you believe?
 
The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules

Sometimes a consensus is wrong, but they happen when all of the evidence seems to point in one direction. There's also a scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you pay much attention to the skeptics in that conversation?

What evidence? That is what I keep asking...There is no evidence that points towards man being the cause of climate change...the climate we are experiencing is well within the boundaries of natural variability....
 
It's not some science conspiracy.

Tell me...how do you know this? What sort of evidence do you have to support that claim? I am always interested in what sort of evidence people have to support their claims...that is a big one made with true belief...what sort of evidence is behind that sort of belief?
 
Back
Top Bottom