What most of Scientists Really Say About Climate Change?

Oh, so now it’s the year 2100 and not 2000 like we were told in the 90’s? Bloody clowns.

There is no existential threat to humanity because of climate change. This will be biggest hoax of a generation.

And 97% of scientists said the covid jabs were "safe and effective"

Dafuq?!?… that’s all you can do? You can question the shit out of your models, pal. You never even mention the possibility that your models could be wrong. Or the assumptions you make within those models could be orders of magnitude wrong. This is a big long-winded version of “trust the science.” Dafuqoutahere with your stale bullshit.

I’m

He goes on a long spiel about how science is fallible and the best they can do is modeling, and then expresses frustration that politicians won’t use those predictions as gospel.

The trouble with this is that climate change isn’t considered a fallable theory. It’s perfectly reasonable as a political position to say that anything with a range that wide isn’t well enough understood to take the kind of actions that are fundementally destroying economies.

He’s ignorant to the stat. The 97% stat doesn’t say 97% of scientists. It’s 97% of papers which have a replication issue

You might be able to convince me that your predictions are correct …. but you’ll never convince me that you have a viable solution.

Because "scientists" researching this stuff need grants. Those grants are searching for a specific answer, not just any answer based on science

If you want people to think you’re serious, don’t include a video that starts with 97% lie.

Well, tarot cards it is. If they really believe in this crap, why aren't they moving people away from the equator, now? Why are buildings still selling in Miami? They're all going to be under water, right?

A good article on why that “97% of scientists agree on climate change” statement is wrong.

By doubling CO2 to 800ppm, at most you get 0.7C increase. The NGO funded scientists use gains to show 3-5C increases, and if you look at the last 30years, all those models have overestimated by 5-10X the actual temp increase experienced.

What about mentioning that the scientists they claim don’t even have expertise in climate. They are all sorts of scientists they polled.

What do trees and plants need to create oxygen? 🤣 Also buildings retain heat 🤣🤨🫠"climate change" is just invented to tax. Another way of robbing us of money. Climate hoax 🤣 look at the biggest polluters. Where's great then?

This is the climate change argument in a nutshell.

The aassumption in this question is that the scientists are doing this on their own accord and not being paid to prove some proposal by the science funder. The reality is that businesses have a definite financial incentive here and are using scientists to justify policy change and paying scientist to back up their justification.

These models are highly prone to human assumptions and error Companies can barely 3 year company forecasts with far less complicated variables than the entire global Atmosphere over the next 100 years The idea that future climate can be accurately predicted is total nonsense

Because the “scientists” refuse to accept that their silly hypothesis has been disconfirmed by the empirical evidence. The global warming hoax predicted 5C of CO2 warming by 2100, but all empirical evidence shows ECS will only be around 1.2C, which is a net benefit.

Because the real stat is that its 97% of politicians...

Climate on this planet has been changing since the days the planet formed a few billion years ago. From hot to ice ages to moderate. Way before humans ever showed up. The smug conviction of the woke left that Climate Change is real is nonsensical at best.

He says: 1. You cannot argue with the science. 2. The current scientific thinking may be wrong. 3. You have "got to" act on the science. Huh? His thinking is pretty muddled.

Climate change has been happening since time began foe the earth. Man has never effected Climate. One volcano or methane feom rotting plants. CO2 levels move. Remember plants crave CO2

The bullshit is the 97% number And they still don’t agree that man is at the cause for changes in climate. The scientists have been proven wrong with every 5 year prediction over the 50 years.. people will stop believing you when you get it wrong that many times

Any anti-fossil-fuel agenda is an anti-human agenda. Agriculture, Construction, Emergency services, national defense, disaster cleanup and recovery, transportation all depend on fossil fuel There is no substitute.

There’s a mistake in his statement. 100% of scientist do agree that there is climate change. The only problem is a large proportion think it is man-made and some feel that it is not. They keep leaving out the man-made climate change phrase. The climate is always changing. Most of it is due to the sun. What can man possibly do to fix the sun issue?

Let’s stay with the bridge analogy - After we accept that the bridge isn’t safe and the solution is to put a toll booth on the bridge…..that’s when the public rejects the findings. I am highly suspicious of climate change warnings b/c so many predictions have been shown to be alarmist and wrong already. I reject the suggested solutions b/c they are made by people who fly on private planes to their private yachts.

Bullshit. It was 100% government saying it. George Bush said in the 90s we have 10 years left. Al Gore said the ice caps were melting. Now its AOC. Its government funded lies.

The science is not the problem. It is the flawed policy that is extracted from the science, as stated in the video. It is also the arrogance of "but the science says" folks that use findings to browbeat people into following flawed policy or to make them bow down in obedience, when individual action is a complicated decision. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. If you don't take the time to understand why I make my choices, then you haven no right to judge them.

The stat is fake and academia enforces establishment opinions and goes after those that deviate. Literally why String Theory existed for so long until recently when it started to fall out of favor. When "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006 Al Gore thought he was presenting the scientific view and literally everything in it that had a timeline that could be tested was shown by the following history to be complete nonsense. Regardless if climate change is real or not my policy preferences would stay the same. Build nuclear power, filter smog from factory chimneys, and research energy tech.

If the science wasn't infused with government money, seeking a particular outcome. And you didn't have political prognosticators, rooting and funding for a particular outcome, and all science was void of political and financial influence. Then, I would say your response is spot on. But with all the other things going on, which affect the outcome of research, it all becomes suspect at some point to non scientific average. People who can't read a scientific paper and understand what the math or the science is telling them they have to rely on experts. But yet experts that we in the past trusted have been proven to be wrong and not just wrong, because they made a mistake wrong, because they intentionally fudged the data. So how's the average person supposed to know? Whether to trust this particular scientist that they're not being affected by it, where others are fundamentally, it's a problem of scientists. Not calling out other scientists that they know fudge the data and require More rigorous peer review

The problem is that "trust the science" and "the science is settled" have been weaponised to stop people from asking questions and as the video points out, there is no settled science.