The Church of Climate Change

So basically it's governments that foot the bill.

Which, of course is why any results are curved toward the political ambitions of the payers. Threats of global disaster pay big in that industry.

 

As for science, scientists from numerous fields of science and from all countries around the world contribute. They all study various aspects of nature.

I certainly hope that our government considers the results of science - just like they consider other sources of information (such as costs of various actions, the relative importance when weighed against other issues we face, etc.).

 

Grants aren't approved on the basis of what the outcome of a study might be.

Besides, one doesn't know the outcome until the study is complete, obviously.

 

They don't. Witness the enormous impact that the climate change fraud is likely to have with trying to ban CO2.

But one certainly can't question "science" according to you and many others.

Because science is perfect and incorruptible.

Or so I've heard.

 

Science isn't an industry.

We've had presidents who do not accept what climate scientists are saying. So, your knee jerk reaction of rejection doesn't really answer any issue you might have.

 

No, you can question science. After all, scientists question results all the time. Science advances by scientists finding questions that do not appear to be answered well enough, and deciding to find out.

But, you do need to be honest about what science is saying and how it works.

Dreaming up conspiracy theories without there being any evidence is just not good enough.

 

Of couse grants are approved on the basis of what the outcome might be. Where do you come up with thus stuff?

If you don't come up with the "correct" outcome then you don't get another grant. Everybody knows this.

 

That is a GIGANTIC accusation.

Please cite proof.

 

An accusation sure.

Like saying Harvey Wienstien is a nice guy. Everbody says so.

And everybody knows the truth but it's just so inconvenient..

 

Please cite proof.

I'm REALLY tired of the totally unfounded accusations from those who for some reason don't like the fact of climate change, and thus want to invalidate science!!

 

Weren't you discussing this very topic with user Jack Hays very recently?

 

I don't believe so. Maybe.

The point I've made with him is that his thread is dedicated to an assault on science, but is merely based on a miniscule percent of studies that have been retracted.

We can always improve policing of studies. We probably should put more effort into that, but it costs money and scientists aren't always thrilled to test the papers of other scientists, as they have their own studies to do. There is reward for new information. There isn't reward for finding that some scientist, possibly in some other country, didn't make any detectible mistakes.
---

But, that is NOT the issue with climate change, as the information from numerous fields of science is overwhelmingly confirming of the fundamental result - that climate is changing due to human activity.

 

Which doesn't matter.

Aside from screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over, you've never been able to come up with any reason for your laughable requirement. And you never will, because you just made it up.

So, tell us why, on this topic, you, a mere layperson with absolutely zero training in statistics, knows better than millions of the brightest minds on earth. This should be funny. Just why do you think you can overturn the laws of statistics solely on your sayso?

You should read what you write after you type it. If you did, you'd see it makes no sense.

Not the right analogy. The earth is radiating a constant amount of energy, the energy it absorbs from visible light. A body is producing a relatively constant internal energy. Those analogies match. Putting a coat/greenhouse gases on a warm body or the earth increases temperature, without requiring additional energy, so your loony theory is clearly totally wrong.

In contrast, a rock by itself doesn't have a constant energy source, so your analogy faceplants.

Got it. You're just making up your own insane version of thermodynamics. The funny part is how you expect to be taken seriously.

(Go on. Give us your "YOU USED A COLLOQUIALISM THAT EVERYONE USES, SO YOU'RE WRONG!" screaming. You know you want to, and what other sleazy deflection do you have?)

 

How would one prove the specific reason they didn't get a grant? Do you think they send out a letter that says, "Dear sir, you didn't get the grant because you suck."

 

How many grants have you applied for?

 

How many studies have you done? What's your field of science? Where would I find the papers you've published?

 

How do reasonable questions become "an assault on science"? Isn't that pretty much how science has always worked? Bring your best efforts and open it up to debate.

Or is your field of science one run by Nazis?

 

Not far off what does happen

 

When they are not “reasonable questions but resemble more”how long is a bit of string” in other words ham handed attempts at “gotcha”

 

I would guarantee more than you

 

Another non-answer.

 

Another non-answer.

 

Another non-answer.

 

Trolling

Get back to me when you have definitive questions

in the meantime have a look at how many contributing authors there are to each IPCC report and the process
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/engage_with_the_ipcc/
Hint there are 16 pages of names
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/12/19R_V0_03_List_Contributors.pdf
How the authors are chosen
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/AR6_FS_select.pdf
and then look at the sheer numbers of scientific papers cited
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-p...eveal-about-the-ipccs-climate-science-report/
Hint it is 13,500 research papers

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-p...eveal-about-the-ipccs-climate-science-report/

Now explain to me how 130,000 scientists are all scamming the system and writing papers/ doing research to get just one predetermined outcome

 

I wouldn't bother. He has no intention of accepting reality. For thousands of years we have had temperatures 'regulated' by our various orbits around the sun. None of these have produced a noticeable Global warming such as we have since the industrial revolution. All we have had is changes of climatic areas as the earth has 'wobbled' and presented a different area of the earth to the full sun.
The graph these people require is right before their eyes - stretching back thousands of years.Denying reality avoids having to accept uncomfortable truths. Had we not polluted the atmosphere as we have in the last 200 years, the graph would have continued as before 1800. For thousands of years mountain glaciers have been providing water for low lying land and agriculture. Now, instead of renewing themselves the warmth is melting them. Periods of unpredented weather formations are affecting the world. The future is bleak unless something is done.
At 84 it will be unlikely to affect me but all the deniers will have to account to their grand/greatgrandchildren for the world they have allowed to come into being.