izentrop wrote:According to your "climate-realistic" friends, not according to science.Exnihiloest wrote:How two American billionaires managed to corrupt climate science
Many climate realists are also scientists. But that is not even the question. This article does not concern climato-realistic opinions but cites verifiable facts.
If you had read it, you would have learned that the author of the article at the origin of this denunciation, Roger A. Pielke, university professor therefore who should kick you since you base all your beliefs on the argument authority, is not a climato-realistic but a warmist who has publicly affirmed anthropogenic warming. And yet he denounced these two billionaires who promote it, but by rolling you, you climato-gullible, in flour. It is therefore a warmist who has my respect because he knew how to share things, he is not limited.
If you were in a process of knowledge, you would have gone directly to see the article on Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielk ... e-science/ ), rather than blindly denying it on the pretext that it would come from climato-realists.
The site of climato-realists provides lots of scientific references and surveys whose sources, as we can see here, are perfectly respectable, it is just a starting point for curious and open minds.
I have the impression that you see "la"sience (as you say), like a big monolithic bazaar where the truth would measure up against the majority. If that were the case, Einstein's relativity would never have emerged. There are areas that are debated, and To believe that a science as young as climatology would already have obtained the same consensus as a theory as solid as relativity is pure delirium. The new generation of CMIP6 models giving results significantly different from the CMIP5 models. much more differences between CMIP5 and CMIP6 than between relativity and Newtonian mechanics, have we ever seen physical theories change overnight to predict double or triple what they predicted the day before? !
The inexplicable differences between the two models are quite significant ( https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2019-1175/ ). Not only is the future different, but the past is changed too (and yes, the data of the past changes, we tweak it). Would physics have changed significantly in a few years? And obviously it's worse than what we expected so far. It does not surprise anyone, however.
If there is an unscientific field in the method currently, where we replace the knowledge of the mechanisms and its equations by ladle-based computer models, where the misunderstandings of the phenomena are compensated by pifometric approximations and of which the slightest variation parameter that we are unable to know precisely changes drastically the evolution, it is the cimatology.