What do you think a scientific theory is?
Yes, we do.
ok I’m listening, love to know about that.
I’ve explained it above. It’s very simple, in fact. Hypotheses are tested by observing tests. If the tests fail, so does the hypothesis. That’s science in a sentence or two. I’ve cited a test the warmists set for themselves. It failed. Hypothesis = dead.
OK. So give me two or three. Stop evading it … or lose.
Not so long ago the universities had never heard of “climate scientists”. There was no such specialised field of study. It didn’t exist. You couldn’t get a qualification as a climate scientist. If you said you had one, you’d be laughed out of the room. You’d be asked where you got it, in a corn flakes packet.
Now apparently they rule the world. Where did they come from? Immaculate conception? Name one with a degree specifically in “climate science”.
Enjoy this video.
Hey, so would I. Shall we get out the popcorn?
I can’t find it. Provide it again.
Art Robinson is a biochemist.
Could you just summarize the point he was trying to make?
The three drivers of climate are solar irradiance, co2, and aerosal concentrations. We can track them historically and see exactly why the Earth warmed and cooled as and when it did.
This guy does an excellent job of explaining it, much better than I could.
No. You said you’d read it. Read it. Or perhaps I should say, comprehend it.
NO, again. Perhaps I could start with “watch it again” and then if you’re still wondering, “watch it again”, and then if you’re still wondering, “watch it again” … etc ad infinitum.
The Lord helps those who help themselves. Do yourself a favour and open your mind.
Where’s Heiwa? You and him should be friends.
1 Like
No, I said I’d read this whole post and never any such thing. Why can’t you just post it again?
Why can’t you read?
Why can’t you just provide a simple citation?
Because now I know you can’t read (things you don’t want to see) and you can’t watch (videos that say things you don’t want to hear).
Nothing I say will change your mind.
BTW did you vote for Hillary?
Why watch it again when I didn’t actually watch it the first time? I tuned out once I realized that the whole thing was just about how he found a bunch of scientists from fields unrelated to, and that have no expertise in, the topic at hand to sign a petition that they don’t believe in man made climate change.
So now, after watching the whole thing, I know I was right. Now, what do YOU think the video proves?
BTW, if you watch it again, at 10:52 he admits that it doesn’t prove anything about the science involved.
No, you just didn’t provide any evidence.
I knew that.
So you’ve checked the qualifications of over 30,000 scientists in two minutes flat? Great achievement. You don’t seem to have read very well thee either.
That climate scientists don’t all agree with the much-touted consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists (your belief) because there never was any such consensus, and consensus in itself isn’t science. In fact the largest consensus is that there’s no consensus on climate science.
Other than we don’t understand and can’t predict climate yet, agreed. So with no verified ways to predict climate we shouldn’t spend huge amounts try to change the world’s climate.
Finally, I’ll guess. Hillary voters are the sort of people who simply can’t change their minds. They were right, you see. They will always be right, you see. They can’t understand those who didn’t vote for her. They will try anything to prove themselves right, except accept they weren’t. Warmists such as yourself exhibit identical behaviour. C’mon. Tell me.
I didn’t need to, he said as much in the video.
That’s not what a scientific consensus is.
That video proves no such thing. It just proves that a lot of scientists from outside the field don’t understand climate science and don’t WANT climate change to be man made.
"So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists [in that field] who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
And he named recognised climate scientists. You wouldn’t know how many are on the list without checking the list. Your preferred website, SS has done it too. But you can dismiss them because … scientists don’t understand science?
Stop it with the consensus rubbish. It just isn’t science. There’s no such thing as scientific consensus.
I’m off sailing. Talk to yourself.
Keep that Hillary consensus well hidden, mate.