Random Thoughts... "Settled Science"
Lets use just a bit of common sense here.
If anyone says "the science is settled", they are trying to mislead you, and here is why I say that.
Science itself is constantly evolving as we gain new understanding of theories that have been around for centuries. As we have seen all through the history of scientific research, things tend to pop up out of nowhere that turn what we believe to be true upside down in an instant.
"Newton’s physics replacing Aristotle’s cosmology, Antoine Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemistry replacing the phlogiston-based chemistry of his predecessors, and Einsteinian relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics.
From a 2015 article by Professor Steven Yates "There is no such thing as settled science"
A main way we come to this new understanding and find those upending facts is by using a process called Qualitative Comparative Analysis.
Description from Wikipedia: (it was the simplest one I could find)
"In statistics, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a data analysis technique for determining which logical conclusions a data set supports. The analysis begins with listing and counting all the combinations of variables observed in the data set, followed by applying the rules of logical inference to determine which descriptive inferences or implications the data supports."
Solid analysis is of course only solid if it is based on solid data. This process becomes invalid if the data is manipulated in any way. Such as excluding data that does not fit the desired outcome. (See bottom of page for more)
The climate change hoaxers have basically eliminated this process from their data analysis. They will of course claim that this is not true but any one with even a modicum of common sense can understand this.
If they claim that the "science is settled" on climate change then that by default means that they are no longer performing this process. Why would they if the "science is settled"? Not to mention the fact that every other data set that may not back up their narrative is categorically labeled as false under the ubiquitous heading that it is "not a peer reviewed paper".
Just try to post an opposing view point about the climate on Facebook for example and you will see real quick when three or four "Fake News" fact checks show up. The only theory accepted by the left is the one controlled by the United Nations. All independent research is discredited outright by the same people under those same governments control.
We have to ask ourselves, If they are that confident in their findings why would they be so frightened of those findings being challenged? The short answer is that they can not back it up, its a lie. Science is supposed to be objective and give equal consideration to all combinations of data sets. Not just the ones that say what they want them to say. This is not science, its politics.
They are only using data combinations that support THEIR position. Or more accurately the position of the government organizations that control their money. And therefore control the findings they release. They then get several of their "PEERS" (meaning other climate hoaxers) to sign off on what they cherry picked calling it a "peer reviewed" paper. This is their way of validating their own findings and discrediting other findings that do not coalesce with their chosen narrative that CO2 by human action is destroying the planet.
If they don't tax the hell out of everyone and take over total control of our lives that is. In other words, socialism.
Then there is also as mentioned earlier, the influence of non scientific persons who fund this research for their own agendas. Like the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that is the corner stone of all climate hoaxers "facts". The IPCC is primarily funded by the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The World Meteorological Organization is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 193 Member States and Territories.
Any time scientific research is funded by a government or group of governments in this case, the scientists are answerable to those governments. If they want to keep their funding pouring in, common sense would dictate that they need to find what the people who hold the purse strings want them to find.
That is exactly what the IPCC seems to do. It seems to cherry pick data and manipulates it to fit the narrative these governmental organizations want the public to hear. The IPCC uses models for its data while many of the scientists they try to silence use real time analysis. In other words while the IPCC is studying computer models created by them, other scientists are actually studying the climate itself. I don't know about you but I trust the latter far more than the former.
Then the puppet media floods peoples minds with this cherry picked information and social media giants like Facebook use censorship to silence any opposing arguments.
Government sponsored propaganda (fascism) replaces solid science.
Also from Professor Steven Yates article mentioned above.
Science is not the product of thinking machines, but human beings in specialized communities. These communities always have a hierarchy and therefore both political and economic dimensions; normally, someone has to fund them, and this introduces nonscientific overseers into the mix. We thus have one of the issues with academic and corporate science — and one of the primary reasons for skepticism about its objectivity. This comes before we hear from scientists who will claim to have been ostracized for rejecting the official climate change (or some other) narrative, and some who have quit major organizations because they believed those organizations’ embrace of the narrative was political instead of evidential.
In other words, this is a well known factor that many people choose either to ignore, or deny outright despite overwhelming evidence of its truth.
This narrative of man made climate change is of course tailor made for politicians around the globe as a way to push their globalist agenda of world wide communism by terrorizing the less informed. Intentionally misinformed at that. Because in the end that is what this whole hoax has always been about. Implementing socialism and seizing control of power..
Now, we have established that by even the leftists own claims, the climate is constantly changing hence the term "climate change" after all.
That by default also means that the data is also constantly changing. That being the case, the science on climate change can never be settled because the data would have to be constantly evaluated through Qualitative Comparative Analysis in order to find what the data supports at a given time, not what it says overall.
In a nut shell. Scientific research that quantifies a constantly changing system like the climate can never be considered "settled science" because both the long term and short term data is constantly changing.
There simply is no such thing.
So if there is no such thing as settled science concerning climate change, then the only conclusion we can reach is that we as a global society are being lied to. By scientists who are 100% answerable to the governments who are also lying to us with the ultimate goal of enslaving us under the oppressive yoke of socialism.
People can deny this all they want to but ask yourself a very simple question. What is the end result of the climate change hoax if it succeeds? It all leads only one place... socialism.
Its all right there in front of you, you just have to open your eyes and see it.
A belief system based only on one side of a story is not a belief system at all. It is an indoctrination." ~ The Ugly Truth Project
The following articles cover almost 20 years of reporting that claim manipulated data is behind the climate change hoax. There are of course "fact checks" that will pop up and the lefts narrative is everywhere so its easy to find.
Read them for yourself and compare, only you can decide which you choose to believe.
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology criticizes the IPCC findings.
World leaders duped by manipulated climate change data.
Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation
Climate Alarmists Caught Manipulating Temperature Data Yet Again
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
Earth in Carbon Dioxide Famine, Says Scientist