Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

I only post within bounds of the data.

 

Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first surrenders the thread for their own side.

Those who can talk about the actual science, do. Gore is not a scientist, so nobody on the rational side cares about him.

Those who know the science contradicts them, they know they have to deflect from the hard data somehow. They do that by attacking whatever persons their cult has told them to hate, and by going off on bizarre political rants.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our Political Forum home game.

It's good to be on the rational side. We point at the facts, and we win. Here are the facts: September 2023 had the highest global average temperature anomaly since formal recordkeeping began around 1880. It's also much warmer than the proxies show the earth has been for many thousands of years.

That means anyone who has ever claimed the earth is cooling, or that past recent warm periods were warmer -- that is, basically every denier -- has been about as wrong as it's possible to be, leaving them with zero credibility. Bleating the wrong predictions will certainly earn you brownie points among the other cult sheep, but it won't get you anywhere in science.

Actual climate scientists have been getting everything right since the 1970s. Mainstream climate science has so much crediblity because it's earned that credibility, through successful predictions spanning the past 50 years. You know, doing science. Put forth a theory, make predictions based on the theory, and see if those predictions come true. Climate scientists have succeeded with that, deniers have failed at it.

 

Your claim is false.

 

He's a Scientologist. Is Greta Thunberg a scientist?

 

When did I go off on a rant? I simply gave an example of somebody who won the Nobel Peace Prize and had been pushing claims for decades, none of which came true.

I attacked nobody, but whatever dude. If just mentioning his name is an attack, have a nice day.

 

Scientific Method Restored to Science Education in North Carolina
Guest Blogger
Challengers of the status quo are more likely to be met with ad hominem than data. . . .

 

John Clauser, a theoretical physicist claims climate science has become pseudoscience. I wonder how John Clauser would feel if a climatologist tried to tell him that quantum mechanics was pseudoscience?

 

Most climatologists probably cannot understand quantum mechanics. Most physicists probably understand climatology with ease.

 

That's like saying that a biologist will probably understand human psychology. Just because climatology is rooted in physics, doesn't mean that a physicist would understand all the subtleties of of it. Climatology is as complex as quantum physics, which is why so many non-scientists get climatology wrong.

 

Well, no. Climatology has been thoroughly politicized to a risible degree.

 

While I'm in agreement that climatology has been thoroughly politicized, I think our conclusions are going to be opposite of each other.

 

Are you aware of the logical error you posted here?

 

Feeling generous toward the subject, eh?

 

Yet, I find it funny that people will make claims like "9X% of scientists agree with us"... even though the majority are not "Climatologists".

I find it funny that being a scientist only matters if they are in agreement with your beliefs. But if they are not in agreement, then unless they are climatologists their opinion does not matter.

Yet another inconsistency I see all the damned time. One can not have it both ways, unless they are completely dishonest.

 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023...es-killing-whales-off-americas-atlantic-coast

When even Greenpeace is not on your side on this…….

 

Really? In every university? In every organisation? In every country in the world?

 

Another strawman
Google scholar result for the multiple research studies (since 2019 only - but feel free to broaden the search - the time scale is on the side)
https://scholar.google.com.au/schol...nsus+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

This is probably the best article

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

The center of politicization is within the discipline itself.

 

I'm blown away with some of the irrationality I see here, but of course this is obviously from my point of view.

 

The topic was a clear conflict of interest.

 

Is it? In every country?

 

Sufficiently.
I note you continue to dodge Professor Shaviv's peer-reviewed, published research that refuted your points.

 

Sufficiently.
I note you continue to dodge Professor Shaviv's peer-reviewed, published research that refuted your points.

 

Who “hates them”? Woodside? Yeah I can agree with that

 

Mate - I have a life and although this might be shocking to you, I do not read every post of yours neither do I even bother with more “same old same old bulltwang” ones that just repeat debunked points after debunked points.