khaosokman

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719747/

I can see you are 100% biased, poorly read and not progressed since 2005.

97% of climate scientists don't agree. You are back in 2005. I can't believe you have learnt nothing in 21 years.

The author is a well published climate scientist. You have never spoken to one and never even bothered to research the topic beyond google.

I proved you wrong with links written on science. Did you ever study science at any level? Have you never researched both sides of it? An intelligent person would study both sides of it. The 99.9% claim is what an uninformed person would say in 2005. After 21 years you have not even done basic research on the topic.

Climate scientist, says there is no consensus! https://americanmind.org/salvo/manufacturing-consensus-on-climate-change/

You sound very ignorant and poorly read. Scientists only agree 26% of the time on where the forests are. I bet in real life you have spoken to no climate scientists and asked their actual opinion.

They can't even agree on where the forests are 5555 https://news.mongabay.com/2026/02/scientists-cant-agree-on-where-the-worlds-forests-are/

A school kid corrected NASA BBC NewsUK schoolboy corrects Nasa data errorThe A-level student noticed something odd in radiation levels from the International Space Station.

That is AI which is not scientific.

I doubt you have the faintest clue. You claimed London could cool then said 99.9% agree. Agree that it could cool? I already debunked your sea level claim and 99.9% of people never agree. The Met Office is forecasting warming not cooling.

Where do you get the 99.9% from?

Pollution, road deaths. Overcrowded cities.

Bangkok floods often. Poorly built years ago.

The whole visa system is politics. They keep changing it.

So you like to make up your own theories as a non scientist. Interesting approach.

They seem happy given how tough their lives are.

It has never been that great due to unstable politics.

1997+1998 were greater than 2022+2023 https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/2022/ws-484550.html So there is no warming. Phuket has cooled since 2001! Ko Samui was hotter in 1990 than 2022! 1973 was the same as 2022!

Post a link otherwise it is against forum rules.

More unscientific junk from you.

All of which have been discredited. https://science.house.gov/2017/2/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

February ocean temperatures near Melbourne were 20 to 21 degrees. Coral likes 23 to 29 degrees. So Melbourne needs to warm by 5 degrees to be good for coral. How long will that take? 400 years perhaps.

Yet another much-predicted climate-change catastrophe turns out to be baseless: Worldwide sea levels are not rising any faster than a century ago. https://nypost.com/2025/09/07/opinion/rising-sea-hysteria-debunked-but-the-climate-change-cult-wont-care/ Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.

Most cities are 10 to 23 degrees so 2 degrees of warming is great for them. New coral will form in more southern oceans. In 500 years Wellington could be tropical which will be great for tourism and locals. So the warming is great news.