Global Warning/Climate Change

[Robert]

So far, I don't understand how anything you have presented addresses the three graphs I showed. I think you were implying that these graphs refuted the graphs I showed. I don't think the people who created them would agree. What am I missing?

Again, reading into what I say. I just have little faith in anything from the IPCC. They cook data and manipulate it, as per Climategate. You can like it and find it helpful, but I do not and I am not interested in discussing IPCC charts. I do not find them helpful. I present my information which is usually an overview of the issue. You like to get into details that I do not think shape my concept of the overview.

Example, you look at a penny and will see the bust, seal and date. I look at a penny and think, if I had 99 more I would have 1 dollar. The government tax me on about half and I will be left with 50 cents.

[Bootstrap]

So far, I don't understand how anything you have presented addresses the three graphs I showed. I think you were implying that these graphs refuted the graphs I showed. I don't think the people who created them would agree. What am I missing?

Again, reading into what I say. I just have little faith in anything from the IPCC. They cook data and manipulate it, as per Climategate. You can like it and find it helpful, but I do not and I am not interested in discussing IPCC charts. I do not find them helpful. I present my information which is usually an overview of the issue. You like to get into details that I do not think shape my concept of the overview.

Example, you look at a penny and will see the bust, seal and date. I look at a penny and think, if I had 99 more I would have 1 dollar. The government tax me on about half and I will be left with 50 cents.

I don't think the IPCC produced those charts.

If we can't compare their predictions to actual measurements, how would you propose assessing the accuracy of their predictions?

[Robert]

If we can't compare their predictions to actual measurements, how would you propose assessing the accuracy of their predictions?

The accuracy of their predictions are important to you, not me. I have little faith in a fair approach by them. Feel free to use them for yourself. I find little benefit for a chart that covers 50 years or so of time when Milankovitch cycles take 413,000 years.

[Josh]

I thought you were upset because all the "lefties" were out in mass doing BLM protesting without social distance.

If they at the same time call for shutting down businesses and requiring lockdowns, then yes, I'll take a critical idea towards people who think they can freely protest whilst at the same time calling to curtail everyone else's liberties.

[Josh]

CO2 is a red-herring. Could we talk about how, at our current rate energy consumption, the earth will be a glowing ball of plasma within a conceivable timeframe?

transition from an infinite growth model is almost always in the direction of rapid shrinkage, not stability. Are we ready for that? Things could get ugly...

Okay i will stick my neck out on pondering Climate change theories. "Could" it be that Christians, knowing their Bible through and through, KNOW this earth is not going to be destroyed by man caused climate change so even though of course we understand the consequences of what we've done in 'some' ways, knowing how God will end this anet as we know it, keeps us from believing climate change is that big of a threat?

God told us to tend the earth and subdue it, not burn it down because the Messiah is coming back soon.

[Josh]

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Using it forces a political discussion.

The bulk of the IPCC reports are systematic scientific literature reviews prepared by scientists. Actually using the IPCC reports as a basis would force a scientific discussion, looking at the data behind their conclusions.

As they say on their website:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.

These are scientific assessments prepared for people who are not necessarily scientists. But the Working Group reports are heavy going for anyone who does not have some background in science.

Today on MD, we learn that Bootstrap likes very conventional, mainstream sources of information, and expects everyone else to do the same.

Some of us lack Bootstrap's faith in the United Nations. Perhaps it would be fruitful for us first to find sources of data we can all agree on, or else find shared topics of interest we can agree on. I note that a few posters have brought up the idea of if increasing energy consumption is a good thing, but it's just lost in the noise "But but but the SCIENCE! has spoken, why won't you believe my FACTS and DATA?" yet again.

[Bootstrap]

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Using it forces a political discussion.

The bulk of the IPCC reports are systematic scientific literature reviews prepared by scientists. Actually using the IPCC reports as a basis would force a scientific discussion, looking at the data behind their conclusions.

As they say on their website:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.

These are scientific assessments prepared for people who are not necessarily scientists. But the Working Group reports are heavy going for anyone who does not have some background in science.

Today on MD, we learn that Bootstrap likes very conventional, mainstream sources of information, and expects everyone else to do the same.

For scientific information, I like scientific journals and scientific associations, I think they know how to do science. I like transparent literature reviews of the entire literature.

Some of us lack Bootstrap's faith in the United Nations.

This is about mainstream science, and whether scientists know how to do it. It's not about the United Nations, that's a strawman.

And seriously, Josh, the combative, mocking approach you are taking isn't exactly a rational, scientific approach. Can you call off the dogs and discuss this reasonably?

Perhaps it would be fruitful for us first to find sources of data we can all agree on, or else find shared topics of interest we can agree on. I note that a few posters have brought up the idea of if increasing energy consumption is a good thing, but it's just lost in the noise "But but but the SCIENCE! has spoken, why won't you believe my FACTS and DATA?" yet again.

Are there sources of data we can agree on? It seems to be largely Heartland Institute and right-wing media versus science.

Can we agree to use peer-reviewed scientific literature, looking at one issue at a time, carefully, to understand the data? So far, we don't seem to even be able to look at three simple graphs and discuss what they say.

I think that's because this is really a political discussion under the covers. It's about whether right-wing political narratives should shape our understanding of science. But you could prove me wrong by carefully discussing the data in a scientific way, doing a careful review of the scientific literature, etc.

[Robert]

For scientific information, I like scientific journals and scientific associations, I think they know how to do science.

These same structures give us non-binary genders, abortion on demand, and several other things I disagree with. Why should I hold their climate research to a higher standard than i do these other topics?

Can we agree to use peer-reviewed scientific literature, looking at one issue at a time, carefully, to understand the data?

The challenge is that peer reviewed literature has been found to be "bugged" in many ways. I have read multiple reports of how it does not allow for alternate views and continuing research/follow up in areas people have produced papers.

It has benefits, but it is not perfect. Group think is pervasive in the peer review system.

So far, we don't seem to even be able to look at three simple graphs and discuss what they say.

Why are these three graphs so important to you? You presented them. You said your piece. I said my piece. Why can we not move on? You trust them. I do not. You do not trust my sources. I present them and move on. You hold the IPCC with respect. I do not because they have been found to be dishonest. Enjoy your charts. I have every right to challenge them, refute them, or just say, "I don't like them because they used bad colors." I just do not find them very helpful when looking at Malenivick cycles.

[Robert]

Today on MD, we learn that Bootstrap likes very conventional, mainstream sources of information, and expects everyone else to do the same.

Some of us lack Bootstrap's faith in the United Nations. Perhaps it would be fruitful for us first to find sources of data we can all agree on, or else find shared topics of interest we can agree on. I note that a few posters have brought up the idea of if increasing energy consumption is a good thing, but it's just lost in the noise "But but but the SCIENCE! has spoken, why won't you believe my FACTS and DATA?" yet again.

Josh, from one snarky dude to another. I know how it drives us to respond because normal response seems to just bounce off.

I need to do better. What if we work together to help each other not be so snarky? I need the help.

[Bootstrap]

For scientific information, I like scientific journals and scientific associations, I think they know how to do science.

These same structures give us non-binary genders, abortion on demand, and several other things I disagree with. Why should I hold their climate research to a higher standard than i do these other topics?

Not really. I don't think non-binary genders is a scientific thing. People still have XY or XX chromosomes. Abortion on demand is also not a scientific thing. The science has not changed.

Can we agree to use peer-reviewed scientific literature, looking at one issue at a time, carefully, to understand the data?

The challenge is that peer reviewed literature has been found to be "bugged" in many ways. I have read multiple reports of how it does not allow for alternate views and continuing research/follow up in areas people have produced papers.

It has benefits, but it is not perfect. Group think is pervasive in the peer review system.

But groupthink is a much bigger problem in political circles. Lobbyists and political players use groupthink as a central part of their strategy. They use focus groups and polling to make sure they do it as effectively as possible.

And much of this conversation looks a lot more like that than like a scientific discussion. I have been in many discussions of scientific papers and literature reviews. That's not what we do here.

So far, we don't seem to even be able to look at three simple graphs and discuss what they say.

Why are these three graphs so important to you? You presented them. You said your piece. I said my piece. Why can we not move on?

We certainly can.

But why is this entire topic so important to you? I think it is mostly about political positioning. "You can't trust those scientists, people in my political tribe are the ones you have to listen to instead." That's why it is always more of a political discussion than a scientific one.