[castoff wrote]]
Do you think the findings are a global conspiracy?
science is an indoctrination?
[end castoff quote]
Interesting that you, seemingly off the cuff, seem to want to discredit and dismiss anything I believe with a meaningless, dismissive label Almost reflexively. To me, I don’t find this interesting as it’s commonplace for some people/groups.
People outside of your group, are not scientists, they are “talking heads”.
Yet there are many actual, published and accredited scientists who do not abide by your pov. Have you ever actually looked into the scientists, their data, their studies, their reviews/critiques ? Which ones? And what and why do you find in them that dismissively turned them into little more than marionettes, “talking heads”?
Your supposition about economists is funny. They are the butt of many jokes and derision in the scienctific/business world. Their degrees are seen of little value other than as an add-on to another degree, like an elective.
“There’s a chemist, a phyicist, and economist stranded on a desert island…”
starts one joke. The punchline is the economist stating his solution goes like this, “Imagine we have a can opener…”
“people with an econ degree wind up working at a shoe store, selling shoes.” is another.
Head of the Fed, jerome powell just admitted he was wrong and current pres right as far as the impacts and directions of tarriffs and inflation. He doesn’t have a finance background, he’s a lawyer and has a legal background. A lot of people believed him on economics tho…yet no one did even a cursory background on him. Skepticism used to be a good thing and all great scientists need to be skeptics at heart.
But the soft/social sciences are filled with ‘true believers’ rather than actual, data driven scientists.
from the usgovt’s climate hub website:
"Modelers use observational data to understand how different parts of systems interact with each other. They then use this information to project responses under other conditions, including future ones. "
Here is the main, non political problem with a ‘science’ as diluted as ‘climate science’. There are just too many variables (inputs), and over too long of an often unknown time, for them to have any reasonable correlation to present, much less any future events.
True, weather has become more predictable, but it’s still hit and miss, thus they use probabilities in projecting ‘facts’, aka future weather. I see this in boating on big water all the time. Look at the great lakes, marine forecasts, how quickly they can change. Last week I experienced this first hand as they got the wind direction wrong, but all outlets used that same [wrong] conclusions, forecasts. The waves said one thing, all the experts said something else. And it was all day.
Weather forecasting got better with the advent of computers. Indeed the ‘super computers’ aided in weather forecasting.
You allude to you being some sort of scientist. Do you know how complex ‘simple’ weather forecasting is? What modelling is used?
Now, tell us about how complex models are for any study of climate change over time (all climates change as you know). Can you tell us about population and sampling? Causation and correlation?
How do you deal with your raw data?
Lake michigan in the 70s was one level. We adopted our fishing to that level. Then in the 90s, it was lower, lower by about 3 feet. The settled science of global warming was suppose to melt all that ice and cause an increase in water levels, but it was just the opposite.
10 years ago, I would go back on some road trips and it’s the same level as it was in the 70s.
That’s Big Water. Heavy rains in milwaukee won’t change the water levels like that.
No one predicted that change over a relatively short period of time. No one can. It’s just too big and has too many inputs of varying degrees to have any confidence in any level of accurate predictability. This is the timeframe where it went from ‘global cooling and the new ice age’ to ‘global warming and the polar ice melt’ to now just ‘climate change’.
They surrendered. “climate change” is a meaningless term as it’s widely accepted that climates change over time. Having a ‘science’ called ‘climate change’ does nothing but accept that climate science is nothing but a constantly changing guess based upon observations…which change over time and are subject to so much manipulation/errors.
[castoff wrote]
The second point is anthropomorphic climate impacts can be measured independently of models. It’s these trends that the models try to imitate. but the models themselves aren’t the science that shows the changes in the atmosphere or the point sources.
[end castoff’s quote]
So your models don’t have any use as…scientific models. We–and many others–agree with that.
Observing something, then stating ‘over there is the reason for it’ is absurd
Any person/entity who states something like then label it as a ‘science’ would open themselves up to justified redicule.
Unless they are in the soft/social sciences. There are no right/wrong answers there, proveably so.
[castoff]
The science isn’t just taking place by US researchers it is being conducted by countries across the globe. Do you think the findings are a global conspiracy?
[end castoff]
I’m not sure if you are stating how variable inputs can be as they are sourced from around the globe. Western centric people would like to believe nations across the globe share our values, scientifical studies, culture, etc.
This is not true.
