/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14581071
Since climate science is not an independent field but more of a mixing pot of other fields, the real consensus should be whether climate science studies are consistent with scientific findings of other overlapping fields. For example here, an astrophysicist doing research on sun spots and solar irradiance should conform with climate science. I use this specific example because there was an astrophysicist in Canada that found that his measurements of solar irradiance much more closely modeled and predicted global temperatures than the CO2 model. After publishing his research (which had nothing to do with climate change, he actually made the comment about his data being a better fit at a conference) he was protested and a petition was signed for his removal from the university he teaches at. Another example would be historical analysis. There have been several periods in our earth's history with significantly higher CO2 levels than now. Some were much warm and some were much cooler. Indeed, without the historical adjustment method (which is hilariously bad science btw... data set doesn't line up? Just alter historical data by a variable factor until it does) CO2 is an extremely poor measure of global temperature. Get the politics out of science. It should be telling that the leading global climate activist right now is a 16 yr old girl. Politicians and climate activists are trying to play with your emotions and labeling anyone who questions them as science deniers. It truly is an astonishing thing watching high school children scream "science denier" to PhDs with decades in their fields...

Take your meds if you think mankind impacts this.