Climate change has admitted defeat indirectly.

I do tend to notice things once I've become sensitized to them, and once the small connected ones are put together in the end it forms a complete web. The latest trick which is actually working on the same cloth headed buffoons who swallow every single root, branch and fruit the less scrupulous authorities feed them is science by consensus. It is technically good news, as when you have to lower the bar to replace nothing with even less then it means they realise there is now nothing substantial to offer, but as the system they have built depends on maintaining an illusion our climate is frankly fucked to hell, then when more and more evidence comes out it's actually quite OK and almost certainly will stay so whatever we burn and release into the atmosphere they need new ways to cover it up. This is in the way instead of cleaning up a mess on the carpet you lay a cloth over it and after a few weeks it becomes part of the furniture and eventually isn't noticed but still always there underneath and always will be. So we now have almost 17 years of no temperature rise, after greats as Phil Jones and Mike Hulme said it needed 10 years for a significant trend, and then it was 15 years. In science experiments have timescales. Each period produces new data and the theory adapts to it.

Outside science, in politics, policies are created, presented to the electorate, and voted on. If a policy then proves to be a failure, whether it loses more money than it gains, or causes more problems than it helps, it is either discontinued or voted out. That means in a democracy new policies only last as long as their usefulness. So in both science and politics any idea is only as good as it turns out in practice, and ought to be abandoned once obsolete or worthless. They begin in different ways but end in the same ways as whether by choice, opinion or observation all ideas are only as valuable as their results in reality and when they have run long enough to know then there is enough material for a conclusion, and the bad ones ought to fall when discovered.

So technically climate science has passed a level in credibility. Global warming is required for CO2 to cause problems, and the UN put that point at 2C above 1850. CO2 is rapidly rising, but the temperature is faltering, and if you magnify the hockey stick it still fell from 1940-70. Oddly enough the 60 year oceanic cycle produces 30 years of warming and then cooling, and that is still reflected in the temperatures. The total rise is struggling to reach 0.8C, on a 50% rise in CO2 and existing rise in temperature underneath it. Meanwhile people are phoning the radio pleading with businesses to switch to renewables as there are forest fires in California, meaning you can fool enough of the people enough of the time to convince them there are aliens living in their pants should you really want to. This guy genuinely connected forest fires (annual, mainly caused by arson or cigarette butts) with global warming, and imagined trying to replace fossil fuel with nothing (renewables either produce nothing or burn biofuel which is what we did in the stone age onwards) would be able to stop this happening. That represents how the mission works on its empty headed victims, who then become programmed like Borg to spread the virus of global warming mantras.

Back to the equation. There was always the backup meme 97% of scientists agree with man made global warming. That was less than a sample of 100, as it took maybe 1000, dropped the ones they didn't believe they were qualified, and then used the remaining ones to represent the view based on the question 'Do you believe mankind can affect the climate?'. Now as cities heat up the local area then that's hardly an opinion or even an uncertainty, unless a 30 mile diameter is too local to qualify as climate. If the temperature rose 0.01C from CO2 assuming we ever became able to measure that amount then again yes mankind can affect the climate. Had they asked the two part question has man's burning of fossil fuel caused the temperature to rise to a harmful level I'm sure the percentage agreeing would not have been 97%. So that's the source of what is only a false statistic but again sufficient to convince those not able to think unaided. But the government led media have now been given a new study which although has dropped to 95%, is now replacing the majority of actual articles on data as the data is no longer agreeing with the consensus. Over the last month or so the emphasis on climate reporting has almost totally shifted to the reason it is important is because the latest study says despite the temperatures failing to rise for 17 years or so 95% of scientists still say global warming is real.

As I said at the beginning, science works via observation, and then explaining causes and effects, ultimately allowing repetition and prediction of future repetitions in any related experiment. Nothing outside that format is science, as it doesn't qualify the strict requirements. So for example if I say I'm running a chemistry reaction which will produce an explosion or wormhole in 100 years, had peer review done what it says on the tin, my peers would simply strike me off the scientific school as no one alive today would be able to find it out either way. So when they say the temperature could reach 2C in 100 years, then what is the difference (ans., there is none). Even attempting to predict such things outside a linear system is void as impossible by its nature. But when they have no local ice melts, heatwaves or hurricanes (based on warm seas) to induce from (again, breaking science's rules) they can't show last year's melts or whatever as some sod will have saved the photo and post it online with yours showing you cheated. There is no material. Science would say sorry, we didn't know enough, we got it wrong, etc etc, and moved on. Politics however, would return to democracy, and say well you voted for carbon taxes so you will still get them even though all they do is redistribute wealth. Of course if they worked then the CO2 would have reduced by now but only by using less energy can that happen and that needs a recession permanently.

The recent shift to the consensus as a primary argument for climate change rather than a backup is a crucial change in response to new data. It means there simply can't be enough data to maintain any illusion, so they have left the realm of science as consensus is a political mechanism used to reflect the wishes of the voters or elected governments, and not able to relate to a scientific theory unable to be proved by the normal means ' because most scientists agree with it'. They have, probably without a clue they had, admitted defeat. If you try and use a political means to justify a scientific theory then you have lost it entirely.