The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Ignore the UFO talk.
It was just an impact.
https://youtu.be/wKtmzFPHKjM

[freebeard]

Scott Manley showed the actual impact instead of zooming a still picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smp7TqccTpY

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you want real science then yes.
Actually it would need to be more like 100 to 150 years more.
The only climate data that even approachs that sample size is either manipulated to show the desired outcome or thrown out because it doesn't fit the narrative or can't be manipulated.
You have to admit that looks pretty suspicious.

You REALLY need to read scholarly discussions on how researchers apply corrections to data sets if you believe that some secret cabal is manipulating all the publicly available data.

[oil pan 4]

So read the excuses they use to justify making the evidence fit the predetermined conclusion?
Thet is the text book example of a waste of time.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So read the excuses they use to justify making the evidence fit the predetermined conclusion?
Thet is the text book example of a waste of time.

BS. Peer review would destroy any attempt to do that.

Oh but no doubt you'd argue that 97% of scientists are bought in on the man-made climate change conspiracy, if such exists? Because it is easier to bribe 97% of scientists with tax paid money than 3% with big oil dollars?
Now THAT is a waste of time.

[oil pan 4]

Peer review like this:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/s...lobal-warming/

Scientists behind a headline-grabbing climate study admitted they “really muffed” their paper.
Their study claimed to find 60 percent more warming in the oceans, but that was based on math errors.
The errors were initially spotted by scientist Nic Lewis, who called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.”

I guess their peer review is if it sounds good we will go along with it.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you want real science then yes.
Actually it would need to be more like 100 to 150 years more.
The only climate data that even approachs that sample size is either manipulated to show the desired outcome or thrown out because it doesn't fit the narrative or can't be manipulated.
You have to admit that looks pretty suspicious.

Real scientists of French nobility examined how long the head remained alive after it was separated from the body by a guillotine.
Several of them volunteered to take part in the experiment themselves, since they had no choice in avoiding the guillotine. By blinking their eyes they were able to show they were conscious and could even respond to questions, for up to 30 seconds after the strike.
Technically their heads were still alive after being severed. But there could be no doubt they'd die quickly.

Just like the severed French scientists heads, the Antarctic ice sheet is moribund. The trend can't be reversed. We can't sow the head back on the body for the better.
We already know how Antarctica will look in a hundred years from now: smaller and less white.

Somehow, stating you have to wait until well beyond your own death before you can say anything about climate does not sound very scientific to me. Not with the blood, or as you like cubic miles of ice, running out.

The suspicion is entirely on you.

[oil pan 4]

Look here. Another trump administration first.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...thas-vineyard/

There have been no large over the water wind farms in the US because of the nimby useful idiots.
The nimby useful idiots had been able to block the Martha's vineyard wind project until now.
While going to school for wind power generation in 2015 we didn't talk a whole lot about over the water wind power because at the time there was none in the US.
About all I remember in regards to over the water wind power is it was a lot more expensive, but it made more power throughout the day and well into the night. It was also more reliable than land based wind power.

It's a very windy spot right next to gigantic population centers. So why not.
I'm sure Ted Kennedy not being around also helped.
He would be the last person to want divers in the water around Martha's vineyard, who knows what else they might find.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Peer review like this:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/s...lobal-warming/

Scientists behind a headline-grabbing climate study admitted they “really muffed” their paper.
Their study claimed to find 60 percent more warming in the oceans, but that was based on math errors.
The errors were initially spotted by scientist Nic Lewis, who called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.”

I guess their peer review is if it sounds good we will go along with it.

NO!
You are rehashing the Keeling study - again. And you link that story from yet another Koch brother funded hate site.

Go to the source, you will see the facts.
Yes, there was an error - in the margin of error, the conclusion remained the same.
But you already know that.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Thet is the text book example of a waste of time.

I feel a thread lock approaching.

[oil pan 4]

The margin of error is nothing is going to happen to we're all going to die.

May the side with the most money win.