The climate grift #358

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

I used to work in forensic healthcare, g.

20 clinicians in a room.

20 different diagnoses made.

20 people in the room believe theirs is correct and the other 19 are wrong.

Science, eh?

---

I think GGs point is that is quite normal. So on the rare times when all 20 actually agree......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

Quite, the whole point of science is to question it. Climate change seems the exception

---

There is huge funding available to those wishing to question/ challenge/ disrupt the orthodoxy of climate change. You have to ask why nobody has conducted anything even approaching legitimacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I like The Clash, but no!

Has to be said, London have never been awash with world class bands.......

---

Apparently it has. There was a map doing the rounds awhile ago, showing the all of the London boroughs and the prominent bands each had spawned. Mostly highly-questionable stuff but with the caveat that since the industry was traditionally centred in London, almost all of them could vaguely claim to hail from the capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

There is huge funding available to those wishing to question/ challenge/ disrupt the orthodoxy of climate change. You have to ask why nobody has conducted anything even approaching legitimacy.

---

The only real funding is from the oil industry for this.

And any outcome will be shot down because it is funded by the oil industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

The only real funding is from the oil industry for this.

And any outcome will be shot down because it is funded by the oil industry.

---

:nod: plenty of disputers who've had funding cut.

Michael Mann hockey stick still being used, even though it's been disproved and plenty of climatards pushing for prison sentences for people disputing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

:nod: plenty of disputers who've had funding cut.

Michael Mann hockey stick still being used, even though it's been disproved and plenty of climatards pushing for prison sentences for people disputing it.

---

I hate the fact that "Michael Mann" shares a name with Michael Mann :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

The only real funding is from the oil industry for this.

And any outcome will be shot down because it is funded by the oil industry.

---

Any dissenting voice will be shut down. You need the funding to make it public. There are a LOT of people out there who want to hear this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

The only real funding is from the oil industry for this.

And any outcome will be shot down because it is funded by the oil industry.

---

Fortunately Big Oil funds both sides; it's just business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

:nod: plenty of disputers who've had funding cut.

Michael Mann hockey stick still being used, even though it's been disproved and plenty of climatards pushing for prison sentences for people disputing it.

---

I recall a paper that said if the entire atmosphere was the Height of the Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben), CO2 would be 1.5 inches of its entire height.

of that 1.5 inches, man(or woman. thank you, sister)-made CO2 is 2mm of it.

and it is that 2mm that obviously controls the climate.

Make you think. Innit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I think GGs point is that is quite normal. So on the rare times when all 20 actually agree......

---

Yup. Exactly.

The other difference is that in academia, everyone has to show their workings in detail and everyone then has a lot of time to look into their workings and debate them amongst the whole community.

In the climate case, that would be very complex multiple regressions with people showing their workings for the weighting given to each variable. The community can then see how predictions have worked out over time and discuss how the weighting should change accordingly or if there are other variables that need to be considered and added to the regression.

And over the last 35 years, we've seen the models being refined as the whole community debates the incoming evidence against the model predictions and they're getting more and more accurate with greater consensus.

As you say, if after 3 decades of debating it {and all of them ringing up all their mates and getting their input} the 20 clinicians all agree then it suggests they may be right. {Just a pity that the patient's basically died in the meantime.}