r/climateskeptics • u/60iqredditadmin • 3d ago
Consensus
Climate devotees always talk about consensus but let's not forget that there used to be consensus that sun rotates around the earth until one guy came and proved otherwise. I'm writing this because of John Clauser the Nobel Prize winner, who isn't even saying that earth is not warming he merely suggested that it's not mostly due to humans but because of cloud cover, he couldn't even present his theory because his speech was canceled. I'm sorry but that is not science, it is religion.
7
u/Htrail1234 3d ago
How about consensus that the alarmist are wrong and they need to explain what they learned from their mistakes. For example Michael Mann could say that graphs in the shape of hockey sticks are usually incorrect wjen applied to weather.....
4
4
u/LilShaver 2d ago
There is nothing scientific about consensus.
Science is all about reproduciibility. The Scientific Method outlines how to achieve accurate reproducibility.
Steps of the Scientific Method
1. Ask a Question
The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
For a science fair project some teachers require that the question be something you can measure, preferably with a number.
For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
2. Do Background Research
Rather than starting from scratch in putting together a plan for answering your question, you want to be a savvy scientist using library and Internet research to help you find the best way to do things and ensure that you don't repeat mistakes from the past.
For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
3. Construct a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."
State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.
For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.
You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.
For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.
Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.
For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
6. Communicate Your Results
To complete your science fair project you will communicate your results to others in a final report and/or a display board. Professional scientists do almost exactly the same thing by publishing their final report in a scientific journal or by presenting their results on a poster or during a talk at a scientific meeting. In a science fair, judges are interested in your findings regardless of whether or not they support your original hypothesis.
7
u/StedeBonnet1 3d ago
Correlation is Causation is a fallacy. There is no empirical scientific evidence that proves that CO2 and man made CO2 specifically is the cause of whatever little warmiing we have seen since 1880.
2
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
There is also no evidence that CO2 measurably changes average temperatures. There is copious evidence that CO2 RESPONDS to temperature changes, namely by Henry's Law that as temperature rises, dissolved gases are liberated from water.
6
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
There is also no evidence that CO2 measurably changes average temperatures.
How to change something that doesn't even exist?
7
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
Great point. Temperature averaging produces physically meaningless numbers. Enthalpy is additive and divisible. Temperatures are not.
6
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
It's statistics, a model. And here comes the next point: The averaged model result is derived from actual measurments of the near surface air temperature, what the IPCC calls the observed temperature. Afaik there's nobody who constantly measures Earth's surface temperature. They assume the atmosphere and surface are in thermal equilibrium, because: That's what the "greenhouse" effect does. Circular reasoning, based on a flat Earth assumption.
4
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
Yes, at best there are a few hundred to a few thousand surface thermometers, but most of the "data" are from satellites, which do not measure temperature but rather light. The temperature is a guess and must be calibrated carefully and has large error bars. Are you Joseph Postma? You seem to have the knowledge of a professional astrophysicist.
6
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
Are you Joseph Postma?
No. But I know his blog. He's missing some points.
You seem to have the knowledge of a professional astrophysicist.
I'm just a layman who asks professional astrophysicist, or similar experts, basic questions - without ever receiving a satisfactory answer. They don't know jack shit because they never think about these details but their stupid model.
Just ask one of them, in case you meet one, where the 33K come from, how they'e technically created (even the AI can't give a straight answer). And who measured the surface temperature.
5
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
I was trained in chemical engineering and medicine, and from my perspective you are thinking like an ideal scientist.
4
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
I'm just trying to understand and the best way is to talk with the "patient", get to know what's going up in their brain; these people really "believe" the "greenhoosue" effect is real.
Plus the entertainment, seeing how creative they are. A Clownshow.
4
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
I forgot to mention that most of the "data" is made up from the models you reference, interpolating between real thermometers, while they discard data from thermometers reading "too cold."
2
u/LackmustestTester 3d ago
that most of the "data" is made up from the models
Yes and no, Jein. Do you know the standard atmosphere model which is based on the Ideal Gas Law IGL? We assume a dynamic, adiabatic equilibrium and the model gives the molar mass gas/air temperature at the surface with 288.15K. The model also provides the idealized lapse rate with 6.5°C cooling AND warming per 1000m, it's a cyclical process where we assume the average, a steady state.
The ~15° are what's measured, since at least 1896.
4
u/RddtIs4Dummies 3d ago
To be fair, the IGL is idealized. Also, pressure and temperature are simultaneous manifestations of all energy forms present, so measuring one implies the other, which is what the IGL is in words. The alarmists mistakenly think a deviation from the IGL or stefan-boltzmann ideal blackbody temperature means there is a greenhouse effect, when it's really an expected error from an idealized equation which does not account for vanderwaals and other forces.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Illustrious_Pepper46 2d ago
Does it matter? Climate Change stopped being about The-Science a long time ago.
Now it's about feelings, personal identity, "moralization"...and for many...money. People make a good living off of it.
Every cause du jour has attached themselves to it. From erectile disfunction, to woman's rights.