Climate Change, page-6

"How do I know something is "scientific?""Is it anything that agrees with you? Agrees with your neighbour? Agrees with the TV? Agrees with Teal politicians?"

Are you asking how I (me) knows something is scientific, or how I (you the author) knows something is scientific. I cant speak for yourself. So if you could clarify precisely what you mean by this. Are you asking, How do you know a scientific source is accurate? etc etc.
As mentioned previously, science is not a consensus. I don't know why you bring up politicians because that has nothing to do with scientific findings. If you take an undergraduate class in science you'll go over the scientific method. An abridged version is as follows.
Observation -> hypothesis -> testing -> analyse results -> conclusion. You then can go further with replication studies to confirm if the initial findings are correct/accurate.

"Why is it that in all my school life not a single one of my science or maths teachers ever said "X is true because science says so and if you question it you're a victim of Dunning Kruger huur duur" but online, that constitutes around 90 per cent of the arguments for global warming (and vaccines)? Why don't mathematicians or engineers or mechanics ever retreat to authority but climate change and vaccine zealots always do?"

Because as you say, something isn't true because SCIENCE says its true, something is true (or to the best of the ability of confirming true/accuracy etc) because the evidence suggest it is true or accurate, or whatever you're measuring etc. Question all you want. That is scepticism. But it seems your line of questioning doesnt seem to be true scepticism, I sense arrogance. (Like the whole evolution; IF WE CAME FROM MONKEYS WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS HMM??!?! - We didnt come from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor, we are cousins etc. You didnt come from your cousin, you have a common ancestor - your grandparents).

So, what are the specific points of climate change science you don't accept/are sceptical of?

• Do you not accept that the sun emits short wave radiation that passes through our atmosphere?
• Do you not accept that this radiation bounces off the earth and turns to long wave radiation?
• Do you not accept that this long wave radiation is trapped by CO2 (and other GHG) and causes them to vibrate and heat up?

and many more...

"Why did you support lockdowns? Why did all the self-proclaimed "scientists" do so even though lockdowns were obvious lunacy? Why do you pretend you never supported them even though you did? Given you now pretend you never supported them (because you now know they were lunacy), why should we listen to your prognostications on what is, and what is not, "science"?"

Seriously, again with the incorrect assertions! GO FIND A SINGLE QUOTE FROM ME SUPPORTING LOCKDOWNS! I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THEM ONCE HERE. AGAIN, WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE! Like Holy Sh*t dude.

"Why is it that there's a ~ 99 per cent correlation between people who say "trust the science" and people who think men can get pregnant?"

Can you find me a source that shows a 99% correlation between people who say "trust the science" and people who think men can get pregnant?
I don't think those numbers are correct. And again, what has this got to do with the science of climate change, please stay on topic.

"Why is it that climate change zealots never temper any of their claims no matter how many predictions they get wrong? No matter what, they just say "it's worse than ever!""

If you watch the video I posted above, you'll notice I align with the creator of the video. I dont care what politicians, greenies, "zealots", protestors etc etc think or say. I care about the science. Climate zealots (whatever they are) dont make scientific predictions.

AOC is completely wrong when she says this ^^. No scientific paper shows evidence that the world will end in 12 years if we dont address climate change.
So, like I said. Address the science, not the media, or politicians, or greenies or whatever. The scientists and science cannot be held responsible for what the media/politicians etc all say. Just because the media/politicians etc get it wrong, doesnt mean the science is wrong.

"Why is it that climate change zealots are objectively evil - ie they demand other people make sacrifices they refuse to make on their own? Given they are objectively evil, why should we blindly trust them?"

This isn't a question on the science of climate change. You need to define what you mean by evil, establish that they refuse to make sacrifices, define what you mean by climate change zealots etc. Again, what has this got to do with the science of climate change. Go ask a philosopher professor or a sociologist.

Again, please stay on topic. And please post any sources you refer to so I dont need to ask for verification.