I’ll try to adress what you are saying, but you are so far in your own worldview that it will be hard or almost impossible for you to get out of that.
You seem to imply that all scientists agree. This is the 97/98% fallacy. This is the consensus fallacy. Science is not consensus and as a biologist you must agree more than most scientists. There is a lot of uncertainty in almost anything we discuss with biology. It takes a lot of money and effort to do good biology and it is still unsure in lots of respects. We learn a huge amount every day in biology and I don’t believe any biologist would say we understand the genetic code or how it all works to any large degree.
Ok slow down a second. First, you can not mix biology and physics when it comes to predictive power; biology is not a quantitative science for the most part (there are exceptions, biophysics or structeral biology, system biology etc); it developed out of medicines “trial” and “error” system and we intuitively understand that living things are dynamic and complex. Physicists can put an electron in a vacuum tube and measure/control all parameters that effect this single entity, like gravity, electric forcefield, length of the tube, velocity of the particle etc etc… In biology, we cannot do that for any single molecule, not even considering a whole cell with billions of molecules and organisms that are made up of trillions of cells. Thus, our predictive models are necessarily incomplete [the mathematical field of chaos theory comes to mind] and of very limited use.
In physics, however, parameter estimation is possible for almost all cases, thus it comes down to the precision of measurement and the error margins.
So please do not transfer biological uncertainty to physics, because in fact, scientific papers in the field of physics are highly reproducible and the work of large collaborations in the first place.
Secondly, let’s talk about consensus again.
There are certain aspects to it; first, I never implied that all scientists agree on an issue; that is against the nature of being a scientist. Scientists usually challenge every assumption vigorously and try to come up with alternative explanations for the observations they measured. So far, no alternative explanation can explain the temperature increase and the CO2 accumulation we observe in the world sufficiently without adding human CO2 contributions.
The scientific consensus is not a doctrine that says: Climate change is human caused, period. The scientific consensus is, that so far, thousands of brilliant thinkers have been trying to find alternative explanations for the measurements of CO2 and temperature we observe for more than 5 decades, and none could provide a sufficient explanation other than that we humans are causing it. Does it mean that it necessarily has to be human caused? No, there is still a very low chance (0,001%) that we will discover another explanation for the data we observe.
But this also implies that the likelyhood of humans causing significant and detrimental climate change is really really high, almost certain.
Let’s try to think about it with an example:
Imagine you have an accident, a flesh wound and you get a nasty infection. The doctor tells you if you do not treat the bacteria with antibiotics, you will have a high chance of dying and a small chance of recovering on your own. However, you could just take the antibiotics and will survive for sure, although they might upset your stomach for a little bit. What would you do?
I guess you will not take them, because you surely do not believe in antibiotics, after all the “germ theory of disease” is a consensus fallacy too because not everybody believes it (hint: alternative medicine) and there is a lot of uncertainty about it anyways…
Let me just stop here and call it what it is: Bullshit.
Now lets come back to how this “consensus” should inform policy; we have to go with the best answers science can give at the moment to inform our decision making, because the likelyhood of science being right is way higher than arbitrarily held beliefs. Even today, when a paradigm shift happens in science and the old paradigm becomes wrong, scientists were not really wrong but rather incomplete; all there measurements and proven causalities still hold.
Burning fossel fuels produces CO2, there is not way this is not true unless all of chemistry, physic is wrong (it’s not, duh). It is a scientific fact. CO2 is a heat trapping gas, also a scientific fact. CO2 is increased in the atmosphere compared to early stages in earth’s history, also a fact corroborated by various different scientific methods of measurements.
Any new “paradigm” in climate change will have to include an explanation for these facts, and furthermore explain how or why these facts are not human caused and are not effecting climate.
We also know that climate models CANNOT be right. I challenge over and over again any scientists (Climate or otherwise) to challenge me on that. I don’t believe there are any “scientists” who believe the climate models are accurate or precise. Not 97% or 98%. I don’t believe 2% believe the climate models are correct even mostly correct. They are provably impossible.
I challenge any climate scientist to prove that there is 95% assurance of anything in climate science (other than that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation). This is an early science. There can’t be consensus and if there is it’s stupid and most scientists would have to agree that it is likely a lot of what they think today will be overturned in 30 years. There is so much unknown in this field and we always knew that. The “consensus” was a stupid position to take from the beginning and real scientists should bristle and feel uncomfortable talking about consensus because science isn’t about consensus. Science is about testable facts.
Here, you are messing up the content of a prediction with its estimated precision/accuracy. Let’s take an example again;
You are trying to cross a street and a car is approaching; you do not know the exact speed of the car, but you estimate it to be between 60–80km/h. You do not know the exact distance, but it might be around 100m +/- 10m. You do not know the street conditions, how much friction the tires have; you do not know how much horsepower the car has or how aerodynamic its shape is, but you are confident that these parameters have only minor contributions. A scientists tells you that his model estimated the car will hit you in around 7 seconds if you do not move. You tell him that his model cannot be right, because the scientist does not even know for sure if the speed is 60 or 80 km/h, nor the precise measurements of all parameters like friction or air resistence. How presumptuos he is to make any predictions at all! Then you get hit by the car, but you were right. The scientists had been wrong, it was not 7s but only 6,5s. Great win for you.
Todays imprecisions in predicting a complex phenomenon like climate are in no way, shape or form a justification to dispute the reality of human caused climate change. You always seem to believe that the error bars only go in one direction, that the predictions are wrong and all effects are smaller (up to the point of non-existence); when in fact, and error bar can mean that some predictions might be even worse than the models predict. Either way, we scientists are not discussing uncertainty about whether the car is going to hit you or not, but rather if it will be after 6,5 or 7,5 seconds. But make no mistake, the car is coming and we better make a decision to move now.
When 30 out of 32 adjustments to the temperature record move the temperature in one direction namely to enhance global warming we can be 100% certain to about 8 digits of accuracy that this is a scam. There is zero chance that looking at the temperature record that every error and adjustment would turn out to be in the favor of the global warming alarmist.
Here, you are arguing about the adjustment of measurements of sea water temperatures, which had to be adjusted because the way of measurement changed over time. What you fail to consider is the following:
a) Science would always update data to be more precise measurements and thus more reflective of reality. Especially if the “old” methods are insufficient or incorrect.
b) human caused climate change does not depend on one single data set, there are literally collections of datasets from all over the world that are all being considered in evaluating the evidence
c) I used to have a thermometer next to a light bulb, and it would always show that my room temperature would be around 23°C+/- 1°C, I looked at it every day for 32 days and wrote it down in a diary. Last week, I got a second thermometer, I put it on the table in my room. Funnily, it would show that my room temperature is actually 21°C, while my thermometer next to the light bulb still showed 23°C. So if I go back to my diary, I start adjusting all 32 days of temperature measurements to be 2°C less. What a scam! There is no way this is not a conspiracy to alarm my landlord about the heating bill he will charge me based on the first thermometer!!!! [this is sarcasm btw]
I am quite convinced and I think any independent scientist would have to be convinced something is wrong in this field. Seriously wrong. You can mathematically show these computer models cannot possibly be precise. The numerical error built over many calculations alone makes the results impossible to be precise within 100C in 2100. Numerous problems including the need for constant re-initialization, the fact that sensitivity analysis shows them to have problems.
A test was done that varied the input temperature to the models by one — trillionth of a degree. The result after a couple dozen years was variations of up to 10C in the predictions for different parts of the world. Such sensitivity is beyond the possible resolution of the models. They should not produce radically different results from such an infinitesimal change in their input. It’s like saying Newton’s law would vary the location a ball ends up by feet when it hits the batter depending on a trillionth of an inch difference in the length of the pitchers arm. Such a law would be said to be useless. We can’t even measure a trillionth of an inch difference in arm length and missing by feet would make the whole theory useless. Such is the case with climate science computer models.
I could go ON and ON and ON. The science is very bad. VERY BAD. I have found virtually NOTHING that climate scientists say to be reliable. Nothing they’ve said would happen has happened. Nothing.
I think I have already addressed the first part. Imprecision in model prediction does not in any way discredit the fact that humans cause climate change. That being said, your assertions are not even true. Take for example this: A climate change paper from 1967 which predictions have come true. There are false models and false predictions, but then again we are at the car analogy again. Maybe it will hit you after 6,5s or 7,5s, in any case it will be prudent to get of the street.
And climate change is not all about computer models either, since we have been observing it since more than 50 years, we have plenty of measurements to corroborate the claim that the climate is changing at unprecidented rates. Coral reef bleaching. Ocean acidification, ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Satellite heat images. Land and ocean temperature measurements. Sea level rise.
Nothing I’ve said above is disputable. These are mathematical and logical arguments. They are about the real world results versus theoretical results from computer models which have ZERO probability of being correct. This is not getting out there and the fact you don’t decry the obvious distortions and lies being promulgated in the filter bubble news about climate is proof of a mass brainwashing. Science is not done this way. This is not science.
I agree, the distored view you showcased really has nothing to do with science. The logic of your arguments can only be as strong as the veracity of your asserted claims. If one of your premises fails to be truthful or accurate, your argumentation falls apart. Unfortunately, you do not provide sufficent evidence to make all claims scientifically factual, in fact you seem to be cheery-picking and neglecting a lot; I mostly agree that modeling has a lot of problems that if being ignored makes the predictions very unlikely. However, and now we go full circle, do you really think that we scientists do not know that?
We do. It would be arrogant and ignorant to believe that you are smarter than the people who spend their lives studying this. And your last comment shows me exactly that you think like this;
The thing we need to do is remove most of the climate scientists in this field as soon as possible to prevent the waste and creation of bad science and to get this science back on a sound footing.
Please do not be offended, because it will make it harder to change your mind, and I surely as hell do not want to contribute to any backfire effect. For now, you have not learned the lession I tried to teach you:
You don’t need to be an expert to think that experts are right, but you do need to be an expert to think that they are wrong.
Please let that sink in.