>>4975914

>>4975818

TY Bakers!!!

I have a question for this awesome hivemind.

Anons have discussed Global Warming / Climate Change here, and generally agree that the entire Paris Accord is a wealth redistribution scheme designed to cripple manufacturing in developed countries, and give less developed countries the chance to compete; fattening the pockets of the billionaire elite.

The question, though, is have anons actually compiled a set of talking points regarding the fallibility of the science used to draw the 97% consensus? In other words, where is the proof their models are off, or that their assumptions are based on bad data? Had a crafty counter argument to a point that I was making that "a consensus does not make something scientific fact". The retort was "prove gravity". This is a valid retort, if you understand what is being asked.

Any info to show whether the science regarding warming/climate change is bunk would be extremely helpful.

>>4976002

Yeah, its winter, and weather patterns shift. This is not evidence debunking climate change models. Debunk the models, and the entire thing falls on its face.

>>4976000

>>4976046

Thanks for the responses, but neither disprove climate change models/science used to reach the 97% consensus.

>>4976130

Thank you. I generally dont like attacking credibility, but that doesnt help them if a majority of the scientists aren't even the proper type of scientists.

>>4976137

This is great info, and ties to the above argument nicely. Still looking for a comparative argument based on the fallibility of the models used versus something canonical in the climate community that refutes the modeling data. That's the real lynchpin in this debate.

In others words, there wouldn't even still be a debate unless someone had a contradictory model. Something like this, but with models to prove their assumptions based on the data they gathered:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy