Climate-Change Science - - Whom to trust ?

How is Joe-Public supposed to be able to tell, whom the "right" scientist is, and whom the "wrong" scientist is ?

Big climate week.
Greta is here in Montréal today.
Massive demonstrations around the world.

We seem to be wondering: why does there appear to be scientists, on both sides of the AGW debate ?
Does this mean, that all scientists are not "right" ?
Folks are arguing, in various threads, that some scientists, are 'better', or more credible, than others.

Can you see the questions that are arising in the masses ?
Does science, done by the scientific method, not lead to obvious conclusions, that cannot be denied ?
Or do we 'need' a scientist to interpret, and explain the results to us ?
What if we listen to the "wrong" scientist ?

Is that what we are seeing, or is it scientism ?

How do you, or we, figure-out, what holds water, and what leaks ?
Are we merely observing scientism beliefs and opinions ?
Whom has an agenda, or not ?
Is big money, and influence involved, on one side, the other side, both sides ?

If we look: we could see potential agendas on all sides, no ?

So how, can anyone be sure that their view on Climate-Change, is not truth, but merely their belief ?

Would a supposed 'Truth', not be self-evident ?
So: how does one 'know', that their view on Climate-Change is 'right', and those whom don't agree, are 'wrong' ?

How can YOU be sure, that your opinion, is not affected by scientism, another's agenda or beliefs, or your own beliefs ?


( Sorry if you feel that my questions are awkward. Just imagine a handsome oldish guy asking you these things, stroking his magnificent beard, with a twinkle in hie eye. My hope is to inspire you to think critically, and not just reply quickly by instinct. Please smile, and be happy. )


(( Don't 'know' anything. Only expressing opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts )).

We can no more stop the climate from changing that stop a hurricane. It's been going on for billions of years.

a reply to: Nothin

Some people like to read/learn both sides of the story, then use their judgement to make up their mind...

There are scientists that are in it for the science and there are scientists and opportunists that are in it for the money. Figure out which are which and you'll know who you can trust.

I think this short video answers the OP's question.
(Spoiler: overwhelming scientific consensus).

a reply to: Nothin

How is Joe-Public supposed to be able to tell, whom the "right" scientist is, and whom the "wrong" scientist is ?

We seem to be wondering: why does there appear to be scientists, on both sides of the AGW debate ?
Does this mean, that all scientists are not "right" ?
Folks are arguing, in various threads, that some scientists, are 'better', or more credible, than others.

It is like with doctors. Both a dentist and a heart surgeon are doctors, but their professional opinions only hold weight in their field of expertise. Same goes with scientists. There are climatologist and then there are biochemists, Medical laboratory scientist, Petroleum geologist, political scientist, and many more. They each have their specialties and some may overlap other fields, but just like doctors their professional opinions only hold weight in their field of expertise.

a reply to: Nothin

We certainly do not trust the Republicans representing Big Oil interests with the most at stake to lose!!!

Part of it is understanding the data being presented. I try to look at both sides of an argument but I also like to see and understand the data myself.

A big issue with the climate hysteria is that the data is often taken at face value. Few on the left questions the data sets. The issue is that if the data sets are wrong then the conclusions drawn are also wrong. There have been multiple scandals where scientists have been caught manipulating the data to conform to a predetermined outcome. Just google climate gate and climate hockey stick scandals.

This is why there is that saying there are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I have a better than average grasp of stats/data, so I always want to know what information is being used to draw a conclusion. Too many people just take a headline without understanding what the data really says.

Much of the climate data is based on estimates, computer models, etc. Garbage in and garbage out. We've really only had precision instruments for the past 150 years... really maybe say 50 years. Climate estimates in the past are based on stuff like ice cores, tree rings, etc. You can make an educated guess but at the end of the day, it is pulling numbers out your ass... not too mention we know the earth was hotter before man was even a factor, so they have a hard time explaining that away...

Climate changes. I don't think anyone argues against that... however, I do know the solution is not fascistic taxing to solve the issue.

Finally, I have a simple question that no one who believes in climate hysteria has ever once answered. What is the optimal temperature?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Nothin

We certainly do not trust the Republicans representing Big Oil interests with the most at stake to lose!!!

But you trust Democrats and other leftist who see climate hysteria as a way to push globalism and taxes. Have you ever asked yourself why every solution is always higher taxes?

Many of these scientists only parrot climate hysteria because their ability to get grants, publish, etc depends on it. They know their careers would go no where if they challenge the cause du jour even if they think it is bullsh*t.

originally posted by: Nothin
Or do we 'need' a scientist to interpret, and explain the results to us ?

So how, can anyone be sure that their view on Climate-Change, is not truth, but merely their belief ?

Paraphrasing you a bit.
No we don't need a scientist to interpret or explain. Right there is the problem. It's easier to get someone else to tell us what's what than to actually think for ourselves. People should be ashamed they are so lazy.

SMH

It's time we quit whining about this and just stuck our heads outside and looked for ourselves. The Climate IS Changing, it never wasn't going to change! We know the correct things to do, yet we faff around looking for something or someone or some industry to blame.

Anyone following a wide array of weather news KNOWS things are changing. Permafrost is melting, the boreal forest is moving north, farmers and gardeners are seeing plants bloom at the wrong times, birds are slowly disappearing , the list goes on. So why argue over who's right about "what /when" what we really need is to just adapt.

Altho stop shyting in our own nest would be a start.

Oh an by sticking your head outside an just looking we can rule out beliefs and agenda's. Cold is cold, overcast is overcast. Belief is irrelevant at that point. An yes, some geographical areas aren't as hard hit as others, so you're going to do your own data collecting from various sources. You know, if you still want tomatoes?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Nothin

We certainly do not trust the Republicans representing Big Oil interests with the most at stake to lose!!!

I have the most to lose by far...my freedom, my countries sovereignty and my families financial security.

trust in..

weather warfare programs

colliders all over us mainland

dwave satellites!

a reply to: HalWesten

Nope, sees whose predictions are accurate and you can know who to believe. Climate alarmists have been wrong with every single prediction they've made, so you can pretty much dismiss anything they tell you.

Read the boy who cried wolf, it'll tell you everything you need to know.

Jaden

a reply to: Nothin

Would a supposed 'Truth', not be self-evident ?
So: how does one 'know', that their view on Climate-Change is 'right', and those whom don't agree, are 'wrong' ?

One way to have an idea of who is correct is to look at all the forecast models the alarmist have made over the last 30 years. Ice free Arctic, Kids will never see snow during Christmas, Polar bears with no ice, but my favorite is all the fake graphs and fiddled numbers the supposedly experts have put out as fact when they are indeed easily proven lies.

youtu.be...


cei.org...

If you go back to the 60s and look at all the experts who managed to get their expert opinions published you will quickly realize there really are no experts when considering Earth's climate; just look at their track record and all their forecast..

"Oh but what if they are correct this time" ?

If history is any kind of indicator I would not lose any sleep over it.

It's been colder than normal where I live, over the past couple of years, so these so-called 'experts' are full of crap.

They used to call it 'global warming' all the time, but when we saw it was colder, or the same as before, they changed it to 'climate change', to cover their lying asses.

Climate always 'changes', always has, always will. Nothing new here.

It's just a cash grab, and more of their typical fear-mongering, so please, don't fall for their bull. It's pure nonsense, flogged over and over in mass media, to ignorant masses. Sad.

Turn away from the new-fangled "climate scientists" and turn to the ages old true sciences.
Climatologists - use records dating back only since about 1925
True science - uses data going back sometimes millions of years.
Then you will have your answer.

a reply to: turbonium1

They used to call it 'global warming' all the time, but when we saw it was colder, or the same as before, they changed it to 'climate change', to cover their lying asses.

Actually, both terms have been and are still being used.

It works like this; global warming leads to climate change. They are two different but related things.

Neither one means that no place will never be cold.

originally posted by: HalWesten
There are scientists that are in it for the science and there are scientists and opportunists that are in it for the money. Figure out which are which and you'll know who you can trust.

You're missing another contingent: scientists who just don't know any better when it comes to predictive modeling.
So it may not be the science - or the scientist - that's "bad" in fact, it's highly likely that they lack rigorous modeling skills.
The 500 scientists that wrote the UN about no existing climate emergency called "immature models" the problem.

ganjoa

originally posted by: willzilla
We can no more stop the climate from changing that stop a hurricane. It's been going on for billions of years.

Greetings WZ.
Welcome to the front of the classroom. First reply post, rational, and all that.

So no seriously, and/or majorly, being able to affect weather-systems yet ?
( Hurricanes, tropical storms, typhoons and such ? )
Would we be fools to think that no one has ever ventured to manipulate weather-systems ?

Could we contemplate the relationships between Climate-Change and weather ?
Similarities ? Differences ?

It's a big scam to sell carbon credits.

So the companies that pollute in China will pay Al Gore and his ilk literally trillions of dollars.

Big fat scam.