climate

Yeah apparently those '97% of scientists' are still busy..

science isn't a democracy.

Those '97% of scientists' signed that paper to keep their jobs and grants.

You go to 10 doctors. 9 of then tell you that you have cancer. The 10th guy recommends essential oils and tells you it isn't cancer.

Logical conclusion: the 9 were lying because they make money if you are sick.

Just to clarify, that was sarcasm.

97% of climate scientists are willing to lie for grants, but the scientists employed by oil lobies aren't suspicious? The line between healthy scepticism and paranoia has been crossed.

Scientists compete to be published. If someone could make a good case against climate change, they would be published if just to see it debunked.

In reality they'll give you tests and those tests will inform whether you have cancer or not. and its not 1 out of 10. Its more like 1 out of 100.
The science just doesn't hold up to inspection. In fact climategate shows how they were faking numbers to make it look like it is caused by humans.
97% of scientists asked were pro anthropomorphic climate change.
Scientists publish in certain well known journals peer reviewed by the same small group of scientists that are pro climate change. They don't get published for the same reason anti-evolution scientists aren't published because they don't want to tarnish their reputation and they are trying to push a narrative.
I bet if you give me a list of peer reviewing for major journals I can give you a list of globalist organizations they belong to.

I'm sorry, but this isn't a matter of opinion.

Climategate was misconstrued and out of context. If you want to point me to a source that breaks it down, I'll read it. Nobody wants to be a fool. But what I have read and things that expand out and show the context of the supposed "smoking guns" demonstrates they aren't. There were some examples of unprofessional behavior, but nothing that shows a conspiracy.

There is something to be said for group think and being afraid of ridicule, but sometimes ridicule is deserved (flat earthers). All doctors are probably going to be part of the same professional groups. That's kind of the nature of that sort of profession. You want to say up to date on the latest publications.

97% of scientists were pro anthropomorphic climate change. So? Probably 100% believe in gravity and mitochondria. Some things are just the prevailing theory.

Anti-evolution scientists aren't published the same reason flat earthers aren't published - people who don't follow the facts and have an agenda have a tendency to write things that don't stand up to peer review.

Everything I've been pointed to that is supposed to demonstrate that climate change is faked has been bull. "look, this article from NASA says snow levels on the south pole are rising!". And that's true, the article did, but the article wasn't hiding anything. The paper was actually more of an observation: Water levels have risen by this much. We had modeled that the south pole was one of the major sources of that rise. If the south pole wasn't a contributor, then the ice melt had to come from somewhere else, where?" So this was a paper openly discussing a modeling issue and correcting some of the assumptions. That's what scientists do.

And you know those papers that say "all of these scientists signed saying they don't believe in climate change"? I've looked at those. Their definition of Scientist is a bachelor of science. you have a BS in business administration? Awesome. BS in Art History? Good enough.

People don't listen to the scientists because apparently they are all liars. But they don't listen to the kid appealing to emotion because she's not a scientist?

Its not just climategate. There have been many that have come out afterwards having faked results.
https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/07/90-scientists-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/09/nolte-scientists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=da5a33f12d6a

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/?sh=7dc7c30053a5

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

https://climate.news/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-michael-mann-bogus-hockey-stick-graph.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

The trick is not to use google as your search engine. I'm currently using www.duckduckgo.com, but just about any independent search engine works.

continued:

Tim Ball himself "won" a suit with another climate scientist. "The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views..." So... yeah.

YouTube video...maybe I'll watch it later, but I actually prefer info in written form.

And of note, I notice climate change deniers are all over the place. It isn't happening, it is happening, but it isn't that bad, it is happening, but man isn't the cause, etc. It reeks of a disinformation campaign. Instead of providing a single alternate story that can be disproven, you sow the seeds of lots of different stories. Anyone trying to find out the truth or to disprove all of them will give up. it is just intended to muddy the waters. To create the illusion that there is still debate. There isn't.

Its like the doctors who worked for big tobacco and even more similar to the COVID disinformation. Its a hoax, it isn't a hoax but its exaggerated, it isn't exaggerated, but it was always going to be this bad. Its noise. Its inconsistent. It relies on casting doubt.

In the end I'm not a climate scientist. I'm reasonably well educated and am actually pretty practiced in reading scientific publications. But in the end, I have to pick who I'm going to trust. Climate change is credible. If they are lying to me they are doing a really good job.

Now if you want to go down the rabbit hole:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php Pretty great page that debunks most of the denier myths.

Ok.
https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/07/90-scientists-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax/
Best part of the article was the guy in the comments explaining the problems with the article. It just references the paper signed by the Italian scientists. It doesn't actually establish anything, it just tries to create doubt.

I'm not going to Breitbart - skip

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=da5a33f12d6a
Looked him up and this article was apparently promotion for a book. Apparently it mixes good science with bad science. Regardless, he believes in climate change and that it should be taken seriously. His point is that many of the apocalyptic "end of the world" claims aren't true. And he's probably right. There are many models, and some are almost unbelievable apocalyptic. I personally doubt climate change will ever be a threat to the human race as a whole. But I know the Army and DOD continue to treat climate change and the instability it is going to cause as something they take very seriously.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/?sh=7dc7c30053a5
Again, some of his claims of what is alarmist are probably accurate. Some aren't. But again, he doesn't claim that climate change isn't serious, only that some of the more out there claims aren't accurate.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
I feel dirty even going to this site. Many of the gotchas on this aren't really. Changing global temperatures changes weather patterns. the fact that so many places are seeing record snowfall and ice and the like actually supports climate change. I know that feels like a cheat answer, but it isn't. Think about it. We aren't reporting no change, or patterns that fit norms. They are referencing record breaking events. Oh, and #7 is the one I referenced where they got anyone with a BS to sign.

https://climate.news/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-michael-mann-bogus-hockey-stick-graph.html
Michael Mann did lose the lawsuit with Ball due to a delay. Or more specifically, it was dismissed. But prior to that the publisher of Ball's claim had already issued an apology for publishing lies about Mann.

Those are just a sampling, but you get the idea. Not only is the science not settled, the open models show that its not caused by humans. There are many scientists that support it that have lied about it.

Sorry, I try to keep an open mind, but I do security audits for a living. My BS meter is my livelihood. The science is a settled as science gets. There are always dissenting views. The presence of those dissenting views is not proof in itself.

Grand conspiracies aren't a thing. People just aren't that organized and secretive at the same time.

It isn't just dissenting views. Its corruption and scientists lying about their research. There are entire groups of scientists that show through their research that its not true.

Just because a scientist lied about their findings, it doesn't invalidate all other science on the subject. If so, someone could intentionally or accidentally discredit whole fields of study.

There will be liars in every field. One money launderer doesn't invalidate banking. A pharmaceutical company faking results for a specific drug impacts that drug or company, not all drugs.

If you want to point me to a counterpoint instead of articles talking about the existence of counterpoints, I'll read. But I've gone down this rabbit hole before.

All I ever find is attempts to insert doubt that are generally poorly written.

The Catholic Church believes it's real. They've been taking about it through several Pope's across decades.

Who's faking it and why?

Then there are things like radiometric dating, which states that over time radioactive elements (only created during the big bang [or shortly after]) break down into child elements and that by comparing those elements you can see how old something is.
Well if the parent elements were all created in the same time-frame (shortly after the big bang), then shouldn't they all show the same age when tested? The answer is yes.
Here are the actual reasons there are different ages. non-uniform distribution of parent and child elements. When the earth was molten (and when certain areas were molten after that like volcanoes) the heavier elements filtered downward toward the gravitational center, they created layers and spread out and concentrated when they hit obstacles. This causes non-uniform distribution. So when they test and find 1 part parent and 10 parts child elements, it isn't because anything is older or younger than each other, its because of the distribution of elements.

Good one !

Lol

You guys need to stop harassing kids.

Bruh,
Climate Change is real.
There is numerous studies that prove that it is real.
Stop denying science.

why does almost every trump support meme that has something bad about biden say "you cant make this shit up" like use something original

She looks miserable, like she's been "passed around."

She is a Teen -_-

Do you usually go around and crack Sex jokes at minors?

I wasn't joking. And people "pass teens around." Given that both parents are in the entertainment industry, I would not be surprised if she has.

And yet she still knows more than tRUMPf.

Well I mean, knowing more than Trump isnt exactly a high bar.

Just a major nitpick, but you do know how the swedish Education system works for you to be calling miss Thunberg a Dropout?

How so? What, exactly, makes a child an authority on anything except being a child?