Wrong. Science is data, facts.
Okay I will take a stab at this, first science is when a bunch of intelligent people or experts look at the data and determine how accurate it is and what it means. Then they share what they found with each other to form a consensus or common agreement.
If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.
Consensus is a political and social ploy, an appeal to authority.
Still appealing to authority while completely ignoring actual science?
So you can claim whatever you want, you can blame it on unicorns for all it matters however the greater majority of all experts on this planet disagree with everything you have said.
Still asking people to believe a computer model over empirical data?
That's not scientific at all.
Say, did you know that more than 50% of the temperatures used by climate scientists are completely made up? Yeah, there's no temperature monitoring station anywhere near where those temperature data are sited to... and the other part of the data, while based upon empirical temperature measurements, is "adjusted"... you'll note it's often "adjusted" for no good reason, and always toward higher temperatures. That is, after all, what put WattsUpWithThat.com on the map.
Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”
That was their "trick to hide the decline", by the way... they adjusted past temperatures cooler, so present temperatures appeared to be warmer, so they could keep making alarmist proclamations of "Warmest Year Ever!", so they could keep getting funding. In actuality, modern temperature has been decreasing. Kinda strange, though, that they adjusted the data so it exactly fit changes in CO2 concentration.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
They kind of backed themselves into a corner, though... they erased the Little Ice Age, forcing them to claim it was only regional... then hundreds of studies from all over the world proved they were lying, that the Little Ice Age was global. They even tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period so they could claim modern temperatures were "warmest ever!". Got roundly slapped for that one, they did.
Here's one they changed:
and another (thanks, PeakPositive):
and another (this one doubled the 1890 to 1980 warming trend):
I could do this all day. :D
(They did the same for sea level... lowering historical sea level so contemporary sea level looked higher. Would you like to see the hundreds of graphs proving that?)
In fact, for Greenland, Iceland, northern Norway, Russia and Siberia only 4 stations (Vardo, Ust Cil Ma, Kanin Nos and Murmansk) weren't "adjusted" to show warmer temperatures. Nearly a third of Russia doesn't even have temperature monitoring stations, but that didn't stop the climate alarmists from claiming rapid warming in those areas. Those were the areas in Russia where locals with mercury thermometers said their thermometers no longer worked... the mercury had sunk all the way into the bulb (so at least -40 C, the freezing point of mercury).
Adjustment is supposed to be used when a station is recalibrated... yet we can see month-after-month upward adjustments for stations that were not recalibrated. And why were past temperatures progressively adjusted downward more the further back in time the data was obtained? How's that work?
In fact, NOAA were caught falsifying data in real time to erase the current cold temperatures:
Nothing to see here, folks. Sharks being frozen solid, starfish freezing to death by the hundreds of thousands, iguanas being so cold they fall out of the trees, flocks of sheep being completely buried in snow, entire herds of caribou freezing solid... all completely normal. See it every year. Carry on. Nothing to see here.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Here's a NOAA study stating that they had to "adjust" empirical data by 19% to match their computer models!
How insane and unscientific is that?! Rather than adjust their computers models to match empirical data, they adjusted empirical data to match the models!
The study explains why projections of future climate based solely on historical records estimate lower rates of warming than predictions from climate models.
In fact, NASA was caught yet again:
So rather than adjust the data for the Urban Heat Island effect, they adjusted the data the opposite direction! Maybe if they applied the scientific method, rather than a politicized ploy for funding, they wouldn't be so bad at that sciencey stuff. :rofl:
An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a "negative urban adjustment" to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper
The conclusion is: Fully correcting the surface temperature data for “non-climatic effects reduce the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.
And even then, they couldn't "hide the decline"... global temperature first paused (and the climate alarmists tried in vain to erase that from the temperature record, only to have more studies prove them wrong), then it fell at the fastest rate in recorded history, to the point that thousands of low temperature records are being smashed this year.
Oh look, an NOAA whistleblower:
NOAA's response? "Wuullll... we never archived that data, we threw it away, so that whistleblower can't prove anything!"
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 - revealed by UN scientists in 2013 - never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
Dr Bates said: 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that's what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.'
Yeah... because the scientific method includes throwing out data so your faked-up study can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny. :roll:
A brief video synopsis from 2015... you'll note he correctly called the rapid cooling of 2017/2018:
Here are the failures of your consensus "science":
1. Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating. It is neither.
2. Global warming is not GLOBAL
3. Winters would grow increasingly warm
4. The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snowcover
5. Increasingly positive AO
All of the above predictions failed to pan out. The two parts of that enormous study are corroborated by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.
6. Global warming may lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino
7. Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are).
8. Record highs and heat waves are increasing
9. Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate
10. Droughts and floods will worsen in places like Australia
The only place any of the alarmist predictions made by your consensus "science" took place was in the computer models... in reality, though, empirical data proved the computer models to be deeply flawed.
In addition, here's more than 450 studies proving the consensus CAGW "science" wrong:
Except that CO2 cannot cause warming... and I've proven it via several various avenues. In fact, I proved it causes cooling.
The fact is you have proven nothing... nada.
I note you've found yourself utterly unable to actually address the science, all you've done is issued denial after denial of that science, while appealing to authority and asking people to believe in computer models rather than empirical data.
No "cherry picking" was done... how does one "cherry pick" the fact that quantum mechanics (to bring up but one avenue by which I proved CAGW to be a falsified hypothesis) proves that CO2 cannot cause global warming?
Your cherry picking data which is not real science and if you ever went before any real experts they would reject it so fast it would make your head spin.
How does one "cherry pick" the fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law would be violated (to bring up another avenue by which I proved CAGW to be a falsified hypothesis) if CAGW were true?
Address the science... prove me wrong. Good luck with that, by the way... you'll be overturning centuries of established science in the process. You'll get a Nobel Prize just like Al 'ManBearPig' Gore has! :rofl:
You can sit there and blather out your insipid denials all day, and that does absolutely nothing to refute the science. You can bow before your authority figures and ask others to appeal to authority with you until your head implodes, and it won't change scientific reality.
You've been lied to. Stop being gullible. Do the research and prove yourself wrong, or admit you'd rather have the comforting lie rather than the painful truth that you were gullible enough to believe a lie without checking it out for yourself.