"The obvious and primary driver of this trend is society’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which trap heat that the oceans steadily absorb."
When they start from such an obviously wrong, false, fake and long-disproven hypothesis, everything won't be OK.
Climategate proved they're lying and their data and models are, in their own words, 'dogshit'.
The core of the hypothesis would be a hot-spot over the equator. That was then tested with satellite and balloon monitoring.... and disproven. Nothing there. In real science, when a hypothesis is disproven you need to scrap it and start again, not just fiddle with the models and censor those pointing at the problem.
Going further, ALL of their models have turned out to over-estimate the warming, and have been WRONG. Again, when all your predictions don't pan out, real scientists admit the hypothesis was a fuck-up and move on, not just keep tweaking the models, censoring people and continuously moving the goal posts forward ("Any minute now, less than X years left!! OMG!")
As well as the above, they keep torturing the data, falsifying records to make the past colder and the present warmer.
The entire thing is indeed dogshit, with as much honesty, integrity as the covid vaccines, and pushed by the exact same people, for the exact same civilization-wrecking reasons, so the great reset of Marxism can arise from the ashes.
"Cos it's gonna vork this time comrade, vor sure! Ve haz ze technology to force compliance!"
'when all your predictions don't pan out, real scientists admit the hypothesis was a fuck-up and move on, not just keep tweaking the models, censoring people and continuously moving the goal posts forward'
Well put.
Which brings us to ponder the issue as to 'why these people won't adjust their hypotheses', right?
And that question would (will) reveal the funding streams for quite costly 'experiments', such as ice-core drilling in Greenland or Antarctica, to say nothing about launching a satellite.
So much 'money' spent on so many projects; almost everyone is compromised, as their own livelihoods are dependent on parroting the party line. Knowing a bit or two about how 'scholarship' and 'science' is funded and 'done', I can assure you that, if legacy media are the second-biggest sell-outs (after 'politicians'), 'academia' isn't far behind, if at-all.
If it wouldn't be as boring as it would be pointless to provide a long-form rant (which, if asked, I'd, of course, provide), I could be writing volumes about this stuff.
The end result will be the same, though, as you noted. Sigh.
Indeed. The other day Neil Oliver on GBNews spoke to some turd of a 'climate scientist'. Oliver posed the question about how science shows temperatures rose in the past, and then CO2 rose later, as a result, not the cause. Note we know that from ice samples...
The turd replied "Well that's a theory."
Yes, and in science 'theory' means that which complies with all the evidence and makes the most sense as our current understanding. It's the closest science ever gets to saying 'Proven true'. Until reaching that level it's just a hypothesis.
Later when asked how scientists know about temperature changes, the exact same turd, in the exact same conversation, then referred to the exact same ice samples!
I've never wanted to slap someone across the face and yell "Well that's a THEORY!" so hard in my life...
Oh, that's a quite common feature of life in academia--highly 'educated' people mismanaging to finish a statement without contradicting themselves 180 degrees.
Holding a bunch of 'letters before my name' myself, I can assure you that the overgrowing credentialism is one of the core ills: in the STEM subjects, common wisdom holds that once one's older than 35, no new insights will be gained; in the Humanities and Social Sciences (sic), it is exactly the other way round--one will rarely be taken seriously before one's considered 'credentialed' (old) enough. As can be easily demonstrated by this seeming contradiction, letters before or after one's name are--just that.
Do you mind digging up the link to that particular segment, btw?
"The obvious and primary driver of this trend is society’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which trap heat that the oceans steadily absorb."
When they start from such an obviously wrong, false, fake and long-disproven hypothesis, everything won't be OK.
Climategate proved they're lying and their data and models are, in their own words, 'dogshit'.
The core of the hypothesis would be a hot-spot over the equator. That was then tested with satellite and balloon monitoring.... and disproven. Nothing there. In real science, when a hypothesis is disproven you need to scrap it and start again, not just fiddle with the models and censor those pointing at the problem.
Going further, ALL of their models have turned out to over-estimate the warming, and have been WRONG. Again, when all your predictions don't pan out, real scientists admit the hypothesis was a fuck-up and move on, not just keep tweaking the models, censoring people and continuously moving the goal posts forward ("Any minute now, less than X years left!! OMG!")
As well as the above, they keep torturing the data, falsifying records to make the past colder and the present warmer.
The entire thing is indeed dogshit, with as much honesty, integrity as the covid vaccines, and pushed by the exact same people, for the exact same civilization-wrecking reasons, so the great reset of Marxism can arise from the ashes.
"Cos it's gonna vork this time comrade, vor sure! Ve haz ze technology to force compliance!"
FFS.
*facepalm
'when all your predictions don't pan out, real scientists admit the hypothesis was a fuck-up and move on, not just keep tweaking the models, censoring people and continuously moving the goal posts forward'
Well put.
Which brings us to ponder the issue as to 'why these people won't adjust their hypotheses', right?
And that question would (will) reveal the funding streams for quite costly 'experiments', such as ice-core drilling in Greenland or Antarctica, to say nothing about launching a satellite.
So much 'money' spent on so many projects; almost everyone is compromised, as their own livelihoods are dependent on parroting the party line. Knowing a bit or two about how 'scholarship' and 'science' is funded and 'done', I can assure you that, if legacy media are the second-biggest sell-outs (after 'politicians'), 'academia' isn't far behind, if at-all.
If it wouldn't be as boring as it would be pointless to provide a long-form rant (which, if asked, I'd, of course, provide), I could be writing volumes about this stuff.
The end result will be the same, though, as you noted. Sigh.
Indeed. The other day Neil Oliver on GBNews spoke to some turd of a 'climate scientist'. Oliver posed the question about how science shows temperatures rose in the past, and then CO2 rose later, as a result, not the cause. Note we know that from ice samples...
The turd replied "Well that's a theory."
Yes, and in science 'theory' means that which complies with all the evidence and makes the most sense as our current understanding. It's the closest science ever gets to saying 'Proven true'. Until reaching that level it's just a hypothesis.
Later when asked how scientists know about temperature changes, the exact same turd, in the exact same conversation, then referred to the exact same ice samples!
I've never wanted to slap someone across the face and yell "Well that's a THEORY!" so hard in my life...
Oh, that's a quite common feature of life in academia--highly 'educated' people mismanaging to finish a statement without contradicting themselves 180 degrees.
Holding a bunch of 'letters before my name' myself, I can assure you that the overgrowing credentialism is one of the core ills: in the STEM subjects, common wisdom holds that once one's older than 35, no new insights will be gained; in the Humanities and Social Sciences (sic), it is exactly the other way round--one will rarely be taken seriously before one's considered 'credentialed' (old) enough. As can be easily demonstrated by this seeming contradiction, letters before or after one's name are--just that.
Do you mind digging up the link to that particular segment, btw?