I would never say everyone is stupid.
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.
Do all biologists agree why the giraffe’s neck is long? Do all biologists agree on the role of environment vs genetics on the brain? Do we know why the iceball earth collapsed 600 million years ago? Do all physicists agree on the measurement problem?
Sure, almost all physicists will use Schroedinger’s equation to solve some problems and they will believe the results are 100% accurate because they have been tested billions of times. We know the equation works incredibly well. Incredibly well.
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.
I don’t need consensus in science because I have a formula and I can use that formula and if the formula works I don’t actually care if you disagree with the formula because I can predict what will happen and it works. I don’t need your consensus. I have the fact it worked. That’s science. Science doesn’t need or care about consensus it only cares about formula’s and repeatable facts that can be used to predict the future.
Therefore, the only thing that matters is the result. In this sense it also doesn’t require a scientist to affirm or deny. If the formula fails having a scientist tell me the formula is right is also irrelevant. If I can’t use the formula to help me solve a problem then it is useless and any scientist who tells me the formula works when it doesn’t is irrelevant.
We have various ways of detecting fraud in science. We can use peer review but this has been failing lately. As you probably know 50% of peer reviewed studies have been shown to be unverifiable and unrepeatable. This is a crisis in science. The whole point of science is repeatability. If scientists are producing all kinds of stuff that is irreproducible it means a lot of journal articles are actually Fake News!!!
One of the ways we detect fraud in science is looking if the scientists could have manipulated the data to buttress their argument. This is sometimes called experimenter bias or confirmation bias. It is so prevalent and powerful a phenomenon that in biology we employ double blind studies making studies cost 4 times what they would without this requirement. Why do we impose such a drastic increase in the cost of medicine by requiring that scientists not actually be able to manipulate the data to fit their theory? Because experience has shown time and again that scientists or anyone if given a chance will believe themselves and find a way to make data fit their preconceived theory. (This is not a knock on scientists as it is simply a human foible all humans have)
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. It’s a mathematical impossibility similar in physics to saying the anthropogenic principle is valid.
Physicists agree almost universally that a physical law should NOT be dependent on something to do with humans or our special place in the universe. Physics should be independent of humans. It seems incredibly improbable that Physics should depend on us. So, if we find that physics depends on the Earth being special or the location of the Earth (i.e. The center of the universe) then that physics is wrong!
So, the fact that 30 out of 32 temperature adjustments moved the temperatures so that global warming was enhanced is literally a mathematical PROOF of lying and cheating or at least of experimenter bias that should be ethically removed.
There is other evidence that the temperature record is being falsified that is pretty reliable. 1) Historical records show that the arctic was warmer in the 30s and 40s than it is now. That ships passed through the northern passage then when they can’t now. 2) That numerous analysis of high temperature records show that the 30s and 40s were hotter than today. Yet the adjustments have made the 30s and 40s MUCH COLDER than today. In fact adjusted records make the 30s and 40s look positively like nothing special when historically accounts by people, written records, dust bowls say it wasn’t NOTHING.
Other reasons to be skeptical. If you remove the adjustments to the temperature record it looks remarkably like the satellite and balloon and more closely resembles the ARGO sea data record. In other words when you remove the experimenter bias all the data lines up pretty nice. When you stick in the adjustments suddenly the land data is TWICE as hot as the other records. Wow. Pretty odd? Like the land records had been hacked? By Russians? I diverge.
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. They predicted that storms would change a certain way. They haven’t. They predicted glaciers were melting a certain way. They were off by 90%. That never gets mentioned in the filter bubble.
You read the filter bubble stories in the NYT, etc and they all speak frighteningly about the future and 4 or 7 degrees Celsius temperature change and of feet and feet of rise of water when NOTHING like this is happening. Northing. We see tenths of a degree change over decades not full degrees. They add the 0.5C change in temps in the early part of the 20th century to the global warming change when that change CANT be because of CO2. That’s a lie. The total change of temperature ascribable even theoretically to CO2 is 0.5C and we know that at least half that is likely to be because of natural ocean variations. They are talking about 7 DEGREES C and the actual change ascribed to CO2 after 70 years of pouring CO2 into the atmosphere is 0.25C at MOST.
We are told 3 feet maybe 6 feet of sea level rise but they never mention in the filter bubble that half of islands are rising and the actual observed rise is 1/10TH the scare stories yet nobody writes the story that these 3 feet and 6 feet stories are pure hyperbole with no scientific sound basis. They are pure theory with no solid basis not much better than saying the Mayan calendar suggests the world would have ended 5 years ago.
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.
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. We need rational scientists in the climate field who DON’T argue about consensus. It’s not about consensus.