The Conclusions of Climate "Scientists" violate the scientific method.

[Dargil]

The scientific method has been the foundation of legitimate scientific research for over 400 years and has served to advance human understanding of the natural world. Applying scientific research in any other manner is in error or at worst, dishonest. The objective of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm any personal or institutional biases, as much of climate science research does today.

The scientific method requires that specialists follow a discipline for conducting research:

*Observation of a scientific phenomenon, applying reasonable skepticism about what is observed, given that even sensible assumptions can distort how the observation is interpreted; where he observer presupposes a desired outcome due to bias.

*Construction of a hypothesis or set of of them that clearly and accurately state a supposition or proposed explanation made based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

*Develop a framework for an experiment or other investigation to verify or falsify the hypotheses.

*Measure the results of the experiment or investigation. Implicit in the validity of the scientific method to conduct research is the ability of the researcher (and others) to objectively verify or falsify the hypothesis by reproducing results of the experiment.

*Refine or eliminate the hypotheses. The results of the experiment or investigation may cause one to fine tune the hypotheses to include or eliminate factors that do or do not appear to have a causative effect on the phenomena observed.

*The hypothesis should be discarded if the results of the experiment falsify the hypothesis.

If the scientific method is rigorously employed in an unbiased manner in the conduct of climate research regarding the man-made global warming claim, it would be expected that a climate scientist who believed that man may have caused global warming that would adversely affect life on Earth in the future would construct the following hypothesis:

"Man has caused global warming, which will result in future climate conditions that will adversely affect life on Earth."

However, this hypothesis actually contains three conjectures that must be developed into a complex hypothesis:

1. Global warming has occurred — that is, the temperature of the world's relevant atmosphere, oceans, and land mass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.

2. Man's activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.

3. The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth."

If any of these conjectures in the complex hypothesis above is found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is rendered null. If so, the investigator must either modify the hypothesis or discard it.

If an unbiased climate scientist were to take the necessary steps to test the complex hypothesis above, it should be undertaken in a sequential fashion. He would first begin an investigation to determine if the temperature of the world's relevant atmosphere, oceans, and land mass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.

In 1979, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began to launch a series of satellites to circle the globe, using microwave sounding units (MSU) to measure the temperature of various layers of the lower troposphere. The MSU readings are analyzed using spectrographic analysis and mathematically converted to a temperature record. The temperature readings are then used to calculate what is known as a temperature anomaly.

The temperature anomaly for a period (day, month, or year) is calculated by averaging the high and low temperatures for the period and then comparing that average to the average of the same period in a prior time frame. For example, if the average temperature for the troposphere in a given month is measured to be -50°C, and the average temperature for the same month the prior year was measured to be -50.5°C, the temperature anomaly would be +0.5 °C — it warmed by 0.5°C.

In the case of the UA Huntsville temperature record, the monthly averages are compared to a base period, which is the average of the prior thirty-year temperature anomalies. The data are then analyzed by scientists at the University of Alabama-Huntsville to prepare graphical conclusions of the results.

The UAH graph that for the period 1979–1998, there was continual cooling of the lower troposphere of around 0.3°C per year. From 1999 to 2009, an overall cooling trend can also be observed. Then, from 2020 to present, there has been an overall cooling trend of around 0.3°C. Each of these cooling periods occurred during a time in which the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's lower troposphere increased from about 335 ppm to 420 ppm (25%). These data are publicly available.

This fact falsifies the man-made CO2-based global warming hypothesis, rendering it null and void. In the field of scientific investigation, if the data invalidate a hypothesis, the hypothesis is falsified. Clearly, the data prove the global warming hypothesis wrong.

Scientists continue to promote a failed hypothesis. Why is that? The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.

[Grond21]

I greatly appreciate his breakdown you have done. You are correct that it is not a scientific endeavor, in fact, it is a political one. The UN climate panel is expressly tasked with demonstrating man made climate change. The
Refore, if they want to, you continue to be funded, they are required for their very survival to falsify, misinform, or destroy any information that goes against this mandate.

These type of examples can be found across-the-board. The money being poured into proving this climate change conjecture is astronomical, and the proposed solutions are always an underhanded way to give the government more power. When you combine extreme power and extreme money, the only logical result is extreme corruption.

Scientists are just as vulnerable to corruption as anyone else has ever been.

[Lliam]

@Grond21. 'Some' scientists are vulnerable to corruption. And they are the ones who get blocked, banned, ignored, censored, mocked, slandered, threatened, and punished.

[Grond21]

I wish it was only the corrupt ones who were treated that way. Unfortunately, with any idea that contradicts the mainstream narrative, the opposite happens

[MrOracle]

We would like to "believe the science" but most science is funded by the government, or by special interest groups, both of which are heavily political and control the budgets. Scientists who don't deliver the desired results will, at best, see their budgets slashed, and at worst will be destroyed in the media and shunned by the scientific community and especially by the organizations that hand out awards.

For that reason, the results in many areas of science always align with the goals of the agency or organization that funds them, with the scientific justification created afterwards, often with ridiculous errors, very selective data, or just outright data manipulation (i. e., making shit up).

[Lliam]

Nice tutorial on the scientific method. And what you said about corruption of science and about climate change are true.

In actuality, with increased CO2, the Earth would look like the left side of the photo you posted. With low CO2, it would look like the right side. Not the other way around.

The Earth loves CO2. It thrives on it. CO2 is necessary for life.
Something like 4% of our current atmosphere is CO2. Human activity accounts for about 0.3% of that 4%. That's the "emergency" they're talking about?

Fires, floods and weather events have nothing to do with global warming.

The motive for the climate change narrative is to gain huge profits by certain industrialists, and to gain control over the Earth's resources, including human resources by ultra wealthy elites. The motive was the same when it came to the "pandemic" hysteria.

Problem (manufactured crises), reaction, solution. And the solution isn't good.

[captain_voidwalker]

Climate change is real but only in the context that the climate has always been changing. Humans have no effect on it what so ever. Take global warming hysteria where politicians claim the earth is heating up. Whilst technically true you have to realize of course it's heating up it's been heating up since the ice age ended. And at some point it will probably start cooling. Carbon emissions have nothing to do with it though the primary culprit for climate change is a large mass of hydrogen at the center of the solar system.

[Anonymous]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/

What a surprise; The entire global scientific community > some dumb cunt who spent more timing writing a wall of bullshit than I spent looking up the evidence which completely destroys their argument.

[Anonymous]

There is no question the climate on planet Earth is changing, but it has been doing that since the dawn of time. The last ice age ended a mere 25K years ago. The climate has been warming ever since then, just as we see today.

What gets me is the arrogance of those who think we can change it.

[Fireguy17]

pretty much all of our state was covered by glaciers 200 million year ago but they melted.
Man was not around then, so was it dinosaur farts?

[goaded]

The science of global warming because of greenhouse gasses has been known since the 19th century, nearly as long as evolution. They're both true.

[goaded]

Oh, and guess what, this year's been the hottest on record so far. Thanks to at least four decades of assholes denying the science.

"The three-month period from June through August surpassed previous records by a large margin, with an average temperature of 16.8 degrees Celsius (62.2F) - 0.66C above average.

Last month was the also the hottest August on record globally, the third straight month in a row to set such a record following the hottest ever June and July, the EU said on Wednesday.

August is estimated to have been around 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter than the pre-industrial average for the 1850-1900 period. Pursuing efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius is a central pledge of the Paris international climate change agreement adopted by 196 countries in 2015."
www.reuters.com/.../

[Dargil]

*** suppresses yawn**"

[exitseven]

How about pushing the theory that if the United States bans fossil fuel but the rest of the world continues and eve increase it's use they will still save the planet.

[gorydetails]

It's nice when science shows what a sham this climate change agenda is, but it won't matter to the cultists.

[Pohjolan]

Yeah that's a load of BS and you slept in class.

[Drewtate]

Denying climate change is racist in 2023.

[Dargil]

Sexist, Homophobic, Ageist, Speciesist.. and so forth.

[love_conquers_lust]

Climate change has been co-opted. The implications of it doesn’t benefit some businesses. Although in the long run, it does. The only reason it appears to be nonprofitable is the costs associated with weather damage are seemingly random as chaos theory might suggest. But the issue is the chaos averages out and a trend emerges.

Yes, racism exists. It’s biological. Affirmative Action is a racist and sexist policy. That does make it right simply because it’s associated with a party that accepts climate change.