Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

Scientific consensus​

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.[1][2]

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[3][4][5][6] and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.[7][8][9] Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[10] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community, or consensus review articles[11] or surveys[12] may be published. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the Public sphere but Not necessarily controversial within the Scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[13][14] climate change,[15] the safety of genetically modified organisms,[16] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[10]

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia​

`

 

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

Reply 2.
My own words.

It's not just my default position, Consensus a FACT.
(science does not deal in proof but theories affirmed over time. AKA Consensus.
ie, Evo is not 'proven' but it is settled science/a fact.)
Every relevant Sci org in the world, and a consensus among Climate scientists ABOVE the famous 97% Now as the climate in the last decade has affirmed it yet more.
Yes There are a few objectors which Does NOT refute that. (nor do Evolution objectors)
I had a long running thread "Demonstrating/Evidencing" that.
Um.../again.

Wiki:

"Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

`

 

[abu afak]

Science is not based on "concensus."

Picking the 5th grade class president is.

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 1024269​

​

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 11 Citation Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming.
From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset.
We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

`

Sounds awful!
How many new nuclear reactors should we build, to stop all the human caused climate change?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, on a side note off topic, today it was so cold here in Chitown, the wife asked me to turn on the furnace. So I did that, and then the furnace stopped warming. I try and stop it with the thermostat and it won't stop, so I had to power it off. I powered it back on and it failed in the same state. Call the repair company. Guy comes out, says the symptom sounds like a limiter switch to prevent damage and carbon dioxide poisoning. Reaches in and sure enough, limit switch is triggered, he resets it turns back on the power and the flame goes on again and the flame is outside the boundaries of the fire box, holy crap, we could die without that limit switch. phew, thankful. Now climate change cost me 12k. Good thing it's warming so I don't need a furnace anymore.......wait, oh yeah 12k for new furnace. fk these climate zombies.

Thank God you found the problem!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

#3 (I've answered many times.)

Actually Science does deal in Consensus.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by increasing and non-contradictory Evidence.
Over time (if correct) they become more and more accepted by other scientists and the planet.
Gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

And that is what we Do Have with AGW.
The consensus has increased to an Overwhelming proportion among scientists, and near 100% with climate scientists. Among Orgs concerned.. Universal. (see OP, etc)
`

We’re still testing Relativity

Because it is real science, if it fails on one datapoint, it must be discarded