Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

[EMH]

Willie Soon. And the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon will write anything you want him to write for $50k. That's his standard price for a paper.

That is, he's a typical corrupt denier fraud.

Follow the money. All the denier scientists are bribed.

Any of the ethical scientists could triple their salaries if they would lie for deniers. They won't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

The MOSSAD comes out in force to protect their Co2 FRAUD....

 

[Dagosa]

But Science isn't a matter of majority "opinions" or Consensus, but of data and facts.

That’s dumb. You are verbally illiterate aren’t you. You just used the conjunction ‘ or’ between “opinions and consensus”…
What a liar. Consensus means “general agreement”:
Science does not exist unless there is general agreement of the theories related to the topic under discussion…..foolish.
Opinions is not the same as agreement illiterate. .

 

[Dagosa]

Crick, something about graphs and science. When you zoom out and plot collated data, you see a wavy graph. For example, the graph coving hundreds of millions of years -

View attachment 916486


The more you zoom in, to hundreds of thousands of years, to centuries, to decades etc.. we get you spiky graphs. Now, if you could have stood for hundreds of millions of years taking readings, you could convert my wavy graph to your spiky graph, but it'll be several hundred miles long.

So your little spiky graphs are within this wavy graph, but because you can see it daily, yearly, every decade, every century, it's making you into a climate alarmist.

So what the climate debacle about is, the alarmists predictions and reaction. Running around screaming, hairs on fire, sky is falling, it's your fault denier, more tax, scrap your car etc.. is the problem.

Spiky graphs are just showing collated data, the wavy graph gives you a better understanding of collated data. And no doubt, over millions and billions of years, there will have been spiky graphs with worse results.

Do you understand? I doubt it.

Wrong . Nothing matters except the time modern man has been in earth. If you knew anything about SLOPE , you’d know the rate of change is greater in your graph is greater near the very end than at anytime man has been on earth…you’re obvious science illiterate as you‘re including times when man has not been in earth….sad.

 

[Stryder50]

That’s dumb. You are verbally illiterate aren’t you. You just used the conjunction ‘ or’ between “opinions and consensus”…
What a liar. Consensus means “general agreement”:
Science does not exist unless there is general agreement of the theories related to the topic under discussion…..foolish.
Opinions is not the same as agreement illiterate. .

I suggest you consult an English language dictionary, any of your choice. Nearly all I found via web-search start with this, or variation;
" a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: "

consensus

1. a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: 2. a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

In the case of REAL science it is the sum of facts and/or data that determine if the "theory" is correct, or not.
Classic historic example is of Galileo and his 'theory' that the Sun was the center of the solar system, not the Earth, which was the current consensus 'opinion' of other "scientists" of that time. Galileo proved his 'theory' using facts, data, and math. His 'theory' has since been confirmed thousands of times by others, replicating the math and validating the data and facts.

I'd recommend you consider repeating your K-12 school/courses on science and math since you appear to have failed most if not all of such

 

[westwall]

I suggest you consult an English language dictionary, any of your choice. Nearly all I found via web-search start with this, or variation;
" a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: "

consensus

1. a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: 2. a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

In the case of REAL science it is the sum of facts and/or data that determine if the "theory" is correct, or not.
Classic historic example is of Galileo and his 'theory' that the Sun was the center of the solar system, not the Earth, which was the current consensus 'opinion' of other "scientists" of that time. Galileo proved his 'theory' using facts, data, and math. His 'theory' has since been confirmed thousands of times by others, replicating the math and validating the data and facts.

I'd recommend you consider repeating your K-12 school/courses on science and math since you appear to have failed most if not all of such

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

 

[Crick]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

What does that mean? What are political terms and scientific terms? Precisely what criteria puts a specific word into one category and not the other? Whose rules do you think you're following?

 

[Stryder50]

What does that mean? What are political terms and scientific terms? Precisely what criteria puts a specific word into one category and not the other? Whose rules do you think you're following?

If you were to read that Cambridge dictionary link, or any other similar, you'd get your answer.
For example:

generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people:
general consensus
The general consensus in the office is that he can't do his job.
reach a consensus
Could we reach a consensus on this matter?
Let's take a vote.
consensus on
There is a growing consensus on the need for the country to train more doctors.

Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
the state of agreeing with someone or something

• agreementThere's widespread agreement that something must be done.
• acceptanceHis views never gained acceptance among the broader community.
• concordanceThe study shows strong concordance between patient health and patient happiness.
• assentThe bill received royal assent.
• consentI give my consent to the marriage.
• sanctionShe gave official state sanction to the drilling company for their proposed pipeline.

See more results »
Where something involves people meeting, agreeing, "voting", regulating, etc. than it's likely political.
Where it involves measuring, quantifying, empirical data, objective facts, physical comparison, etc. it likely could be a scientific term/concept.

The "rules" we follow are those set by the language usage devices such as dictionaries, along with the social and political customs in common usage.

You should have learned this in basic K-12 education.
The fact that you don't grasp such and/or want to equivocate the issue is itself a political action on your part, not a scientific one.

 

[Dagosa]

I suggest you consult an English language dictionary, any of your choice. Nearly all I found via web-search start with this, or variation;
" a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: "

consensus

1. a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: 2. a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

In the case of REAL science it is the sum of facts and/or data that determine if the "theory" is correct, or not.
Classic historic example is of Galileo and his 'theory' that the Sun was the center of the solar system, not the Earth, which was the current consensus 'opinion' of other "scientists" of that time. Galileo proved his 'theory' using facts, data, and math. His 'theory' has since been confirmed thousands of times by others, replicating the math and validating the data and facts.

I'd recommend you consider repeating your K-12 school/courses on science and math since you appear to have failed most if not all of such

Already in your response you cleaned up your act a little…not much, because you’re still totally science illiterate.

Take this mis worded statement…

Galileo proved his 'theory' using facts, data, and math.

Galileo NEVER proved any theory You demonstrate theories with the idea they will be altered or replaced.
Galileos’s theory btw, is only valid for use using Newtonian physics. That’s why they are called theories. You are confused by geometry, A closed math system…theories once proved, in geometry , they are theorems. Notice all science theories are NEVER ABSOLUTE….So they have no proof.
This is why science is neither right or wrong..and theories are a demonstration of it.,

 

[Dagosa]

If you were to read that Cambridge dictionary link, or any other similar, you'd get your answer.
For example:

generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people:
general consensus
The general consensus in the office is that he can't do his job.
reach a consensus
Could we reach a consensus on this matter?
Let's take a vote.
consensus on
There is a growing consensus on the need for the country to train more doctors.

Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
the state of agreeing with someone or something

• agreementThere's widespread agreement that something must be done.
• acceptanceHis views never gained acceptance among the broader community.
• concordanceThe study shows strong concordance between patient health and patient happiness.
• assentThe bill received royal assent.
• consentI give my consent to the marriage.
• sanctionShe gave official state sanction to the drilling company for their proposed pipeline.

See more results »
Where something involves people meeting, agreeing, "voting", regulating, etc. than it's likely political.
Where it involves measuring, quantifying, empirical data, objective facts, physical comparison, etc. it likely could be a scientific term/concept.

The "rules" we follow are those set by the language usage devices such as dictionaries, along with the social and political customs in common usage.

You should have learned this in basic K-12 education.
The fact that you don't grasp such and/or want to equivocate the issue is itself a political action on your part, not a scientific one.

Hilarious. You're totally confused again. Terms used in science have different meanings and implications then those used in daily use common dictionaries. Science texts have glossaries which account for these differences. The idea you’d take terms used in science and argue it’s use from a common dictionary ONLY is hilarious.

 

[Lastamender]

The UN is full of shit and they hate free people with a passion.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

View attachment 938661
The UN is full of shit and they hate free people with a passion.

Honestly this prediction is actually probably accurate.

 

[Dagosa]

Honestly this prediction is actually probably accurate.

Deniers have this insane idea that sea level rises have to flood areas during a Sunmy day. Nope, the sea level rise reveals itself as increase flooding during storm surges.

 

[Stryder50]

Hilarious. You're totally confused again. Terms used in science have different meanings and implications then those used in daily use common dictionaries. Science texts have glossaries which account for these differences. The idea you’d take terms used in science and argue it’s use from a common dictionary ONLY is hilarious.

LOL!

Well then "ole wise one" educate us the definitions you think should be used.
Note this is a general topic forum note formal science one.

 

[Dagosa]

LOL!

Well then "ole wise one" educate us the definitions you think should be used.
Note this is a general topic forum note formal science one.

Sure, go to the MIT climate portal and type your terms in. The terms are used in science. Science will take of you bubba.

 

[jc456]

That’s dumb. You are verbally illiterate aren’t you. You just used the conjunction ‘ or’ between “opinions and consensus”…
What a liar. Consensus means “general agreement”:
Science does not exist unless there is general agreement of the theories related to the topic under discussion…..foolish.
Opinions is not the same as agreement illiterate. .

You keep exposing your weaknesses

 

[Crick]

View attachment 938661
The UN is full of shit and they hate free people with a passion.

Curious what you mean by "free people". And you should be aware that the geological record shows that sea level rise will continue for several decades after the end of warming. This statement seems to have come from an "officia; not a scientist, and was made, as you point out, 35 years ago. With continued warming, sea level has continued to rise and to accelerate. This was a reasonable statement for a lay observer to make. It is far more accurate than the frequent claims by folks like you that photographs of the Statue of Liberty, dated to the nearest year, taken from a 1/4 mile away somehow prove no sea level rise has taken place.