Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
That hasn't been evidenced. IS
the climate changing - yes
Should we base policies on alarmism - NO.
Even the IPCC isn't even certain WE
are changing the climate.
For that reason, over the past past 10+ years the IPCC has been reeling in the claim that WE are changing the climate.
If you do the research you can clearly see their change in language and tone.
The HadCRUT suite of models the IPCC references have not provided an adequate climate record to date.
Because of that, datasets previously dismissed are now being revisited, particularly because natural variances previously dismissed are becoming better understood. Hence, the attention they are now beginning to receive.
In all the rush to alarm the public, the IPCC has set aside rigorous
science. Something you'd expect from a political body.
Different datasets provide different temperatures for millennial cycles of warming and cooling.
If retroforcasts were off, then it's highly likely climate forecasts are off as well.
Actually, there are points in this issue from both sides that can be agreed on.
It's tribalism that keeps people from communicating what they can agree on.
History is filled with examples of groups and people that were marginalized because of tribalism. It turned out what they had to say had merit to it.
Solar physics is something that hasn't been seriously considered by the IPCC. It's incredibly complex. It's been mostly dismissed by the IPCC science club. Of the 38 co-authors and three review editors of the IPCC's solar sub-chapter only one is an expert on solar physics.
By the way, it's not the world's lone-wolf, superhero scientists that are telling us we
are changing the climate. It's a selected number of scientists the IPCC declared as being in explicit
agreement with their campaign that we are changing the climate, and that the planet will continue to warm. I pointed that out to you in another post but you conveniently ignored it.
Within that group, to my knowledge, there was not unanimous explicit
agreement we are changing the climate by ourselves and that the planet will continue to warm if we don't do something about it. Of course there was subjective interpretation of what was thought
to be implicit agreement with the IPCC's alarmist mongering.
How many times have governing bodies made hasty decisions which later turned out to be idiotic?
You personally wouldn't even know if the science was sound or not, Interbane,
Stop pretending you know that it is.
All you know is that the consensus says we're screwing up the climate.