Ships passing in the night..

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

All I am saying is for people to trust experts. Not politicians that have zero understanding on scientific research.

Trust the experts? worst advice ever.

Fauci and his group of bought and paid for 'experts' lied through their teeth trying to cover up their involvement..

"He who pays the piper" applies to climate scientists as much as any other researcher or 'expert'


Trust no one is far better advice.

[Giovannibravo]

Mods let’s get rid of this thread. It’s gone too far.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Trust the experts? worst advice ever.

Fauci and his group of bought and paid for 'experts' lied through their teeth trying to cover up their involvement..

"He who pays the piper" applies to climate scientists as much as any other researcher or 'expert'


Trust no one is far better advice.

Politicians are the most bought and paid for group of people I have ever experienced.

I’d like to think I can trust scientists more than I can trust any politician.

I didn’t get the jab but not for political reasons. I’m going to be hearing Fauci speak in a couple months. I’m interested to hear his position on things first hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

You make apples to walnuts comparisons in the data. The methods used to measure global temperatures, CO2, and other parameters from 20,000 to 1,000,000 year old geological samples are dramatically less sensitive than the instruments I have in my garage that can measure changes in atmospheric gases at the ppm level near real time. The equipment that the government funded scientists use is quite a bit better than my feeble gear, yet my measurements are far more precise than anything that can be deduced from ancient geological samples. My point is that the rate of change inferred from the ancient record cannot be directly compared to real time data, especially in the very brief measurement window used to set the current rate.

It may be true that anthropmorphic influence induced a higher rate of change. But it may also be true that we are in a bubble in the geological scale of things that is consistent with normal ebb and flow of planetary patterns. It's hard to be definitive when comparing a 30 year data set to a 1,000,000 year timeline.

Your argument about people not living in deserts and coastal communities is false. People have always lived everywhere they could eek out an existance, except in much smaller numbers. Sea levels rose 400 feet in the first 10,000 years after the last glacial maximum. Do you think no human was impacted by that?

The impact of climate change isn't that it will be harmful to the planet. The planet has done much worse to itself, yet here we are. The impact is that the weather patterns that we built our civilizations around will change. Preparing for the change in weather patterns is far more fruitful than endeavoring to fix a planetary climate pattern that has marched on for over a million years.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by MrGoat

Politicians are the most bought and paid for group of people I have ever experienced.

I’d like to think I can trust scientists more than I can trust any politician.

I didn’t get the jab but not for political reasons. I’m going to be hearing Fauci speak in a couple months. I’m interested to hear his position on things first hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not that scientists are untrustworthy. It’s just that scientists are often just flat out wrong. I don’t know why people think scientists are always right.

String Theory is a good example of this. For forty years, the best and brightest physicists at the best universities have been pushing String Theory as gospel. These are literally the smartest people on the planet.

They were claiming it’s a unifying theory that bridges the gap between Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Well, now we know—after forty years—that String Theory is an untestable failure.

It’s not that the scientists were crooked or trying to mislead us. They were just wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by Krash

It’s not that scientists are untrustworthy. It’s just that scientists are often just flat out wrong. I don’t know why people think scientists are always right.

String Theory is a good example of this. For forty years, the best and brightest physicists at the best universities have been pushing String Theory as gospel. These are literally the smartest people on the planet.

They were claiming it’s a unifying theory that bridges the gap between Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Well, now we know—after forty years—that String Theory is an untestable failure.

It’s not that the scientists were crooked or trying to mislead us. They were just wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get that 100%.

My comment was I trust a scientist to be less bought and paid for than a politician.

The above statement doesn’t state the scientist is correct. Science is all about hypothesis and trial and error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

Originally Posted by MrGoat

I get that 100%.

My comment was I trust a scientist to be less bought and paid for than a politician.

The above statement doesn’t state the scientist is correct. Science is all about hypothesis and trial and error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it. Understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

i honestly did not know that. Old dog me, new tricks.

Agreed, lets go nuke, just to be sure.

Just remember to save Australia. Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.

[Blansky]

My problem with the denial industry is that it can and is leading to following every quack and hack to deny science across the board.

Diseases like polio are making a comeback.

I'm not going to debate this stuff with anyone because it has become a political football and people chose their tribe and nothing changes minds.

So sad what we've allowed ourselves to become.

[TRS1]

It is as simple as following the flow of money.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by Blansky

My problem with the denial industry is that it can and is leading to following every quack and hack to deny science across the board.

Diseases like polio are making a comeback.

I'm not going to debate this stuff with anyone because it has become a political football and people chose their tribe and nothing changes minds.

So sad what we've allowed ourselves to become.

I’ve said it for a long time. Technology has just given the snake oil salesman of yesteryear a soapbox that spans the globe in seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Blansky

My problem with the denial industry is that it can and is leading to following every quack and hack to deny science across the board.

Diseases like polio are making a comeback.

I'm not going to debate this stuff with anyone because it has become a political football and people chose their tribe and nothing changes minds.

So sad what we've allowed ourselves to become.

Yeah. Indeed.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Blansky

My problem with the denial industry is that it can and is leading to following every quack and hack to deny science across the board.

Diseases like polio are making a comeback.

I'm not going to debate this stuff with anyone because it has become a political football and people chose their tribe and nothing changes minds.

So sad what we've allowed ourselves to become.

Nobody is denying science across the board. People are just pointing out what is true. Scientists—even the greatest scientists of all time—are sometimes wrong. Einstein was wrong about some things.

I have a Comp Science degree, but I consider myself a huge science buff. I follow all the latest news and trends in multiple fields. But I also know that a lot of times these guys are just wrong about things, and that’s fine. They’re human. They’re not perfect.

Do you think scientists are 100% correct all the time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

The problem is too many people think they’re equipped to substitute their own judgment and “logic” in for the experts across every topic. Science, medicine, economics, it is a long list. There is less respect for the value that actual relevant training brings to areas that benefit from expertise.

The number of armchair doctors, scientists, lawyers etc is perhaps the same as its always been. But access to information has been democratized - widened, broadened and cheapened. But parsing good info from bad, or understanding how to interpret information… that remains as elusive as ever.

There are many flavors of this too. The difference is also the humility is lacking in some of the more capable minds out there. Einstein knew he didn’t know everything - and certainly recognized his limitations outside of his core (narrow) areas of expertise. This means he had wisdom in combination with intellect.

It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t think for themselves - but there needs to be recognition that many are simply limited in their abilities and to have some humility and deference.

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

The problem is too many people think they’re equipped to substitute their own judgment and “logic” in for the experts across every topic. Science, medicine, economics, it is a long list. There is less respect for the value that actual relevant training brings to areas that benefit from expertise.

The number of armchair doctors, scientists, lawyers etc is perhaps the same as its always been. But access to information has been democratized - widened, broadened and cheapened. But parsing good info from bad, or understanding how to interpret information… that remains as elusive as ever.

There are many flavors of this too. The difference is also the humility is lacking in some of the more capable minds out there. Einstein knew he didn’t know everything - and certainly recognized his limitations outside of his core (narrow) areas of expertise. This means he had wisdom in combination with intellect.

It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t think for themselves - but there needs to be recognition that many are simply limited in their abilities and to have some humility and deference.

Agree and Disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking questions to understand and making what you believe is to be an informed decision. If someone’s logic is flawed that’s on them.

Problem is, the people with MDs,JDs,PhDs, and MBAs get upset when they believe someone intellectually inferior is questioning their word. And I have 2 of those aforementioned degrees, I see it all the time with my colleagues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

Agree and Disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking questions to understand and making what you believe is to be an informed decision. If someone’s logic is flawed that’s on them.

Problem is, the people with MDs,JDs,PhDs, and MBAs get upset when they believe someone intellectually inferior is questioning their word. And I have 2 of those aforementioned degrees, I see it all the time with my colleagues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is nothing inherently intellectually superior about someone holding an advanced degree (or several).

But when someone with a background in computer science is attempting to critique a virologist’s assessment of a virus, unless their critique is grounded within their frame of expertise (or if the virus is digital) I suggest humility. I suggest humility generally as well, because most people in today’s worlds are specialists whether they consider themselves so or not.

Of course there is value to be brought from many angles - a statistician will have something useful to say on how a virus is spreading based on data. Or a lawyer on whether a mandate is enforceable, etc. But too many play the role of arbiter of their own truths - when they really have no freakin’ clue about the data they’re looking at.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

There is nothing inherently intellectually superior about someone holding an advanced degree (or several).

But when someone with a background in computer science is attempting to critique a virologist’s assessment of a virus, unless their critique is grounded within their frame of expertise (or if the virus is digital) I suggest humility. I suggest humility generally as well, because most people in today’s worlds are specialists whether they consider themselves so or not.

Of course there is value to be brought from many angles - a statistician will have something useful to say on how a virus is spreading based on data. Or a lawyer on whether a mandate is enforceable, etc. But too many play the role of arbiter of their own truths - when they really have no freakin’ clue about the data they’re looking at.

I never ever questioned a virologist’s assessment of anything in this thread. But ironically, one of my good friends is actually a virologist. He has a lot of interesting things to say about all sorts of things that I won’t get into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Krash

I never ever questioned a virologist’s assessment of anything in this thread. But ironically, one of my good friends is actually a virologist. He has a lot of interesting things to say about all sorts of things that I won’t get into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said you. It was an example.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by MrGoat

I get that 100%.

My comment was I trust a scientist to be less bought and paid for than a politician.

The above statement doesn’t state the scientist is correct. Science is all about hypothesis and trial and error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scientists are all bought and paid for. Someone is funding their research. It could be a government agency trying to steer a study to support a policy decision, or a company, or an industry group, or a special interst group. Whoever is writing the checks gets the data they paid for. It's how research has worked for the last several centuries - there has always been a patron. (FWIW, I am a published author in several well known peer reviewed publications).

As Krash said, scientists are often wrong. They are subject to group think as much as anyone else is. We see that in the climate publications now. Scientists have said publicly that they left information out of studies because they thought the publication wouldn't publish their papers if they openly disagreed with the "accepted" science. Right now, we can't trust the climate science because it's been politicised. Give it thirty years and the body of knowledge will likely represent an accurate picture, but for now, go with your gut before you go with the "experts".

[Speedbird-1]

'Bought Scientists'? Surely not.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Scientists are all bought and paid for. Someone is funding their research. It could be a government agency trying to steer a study to support a policy decision, or a company, or an industry group, or a special interst group. Whoever is writing the checks gets the data they paid for. It's how research has worked for the last several centuries - there has always been a patron. (FWIW, I am a published author in several well known peer reviewed publications).

As Krash said, scientists are often wrong. They are subject to group think as much as anyone else is. We see that in the climate publications now. Scientists have said publicly that they left information out of studies because they thought the publication wouldn't publish their papers if they openly disagreed with the "accepted" science. Right now, we can't trust the climate science because it's been politicised. Give it thirty years and the body of knowledge will likely represent an accurate picture, but for now, go with your gut before you go with the "experts".

Glad someone said it; and to add that whoever is paying the checks can decide not to publish the data if they don’t like the results.

Then when it comes to things like medicine you have to understand what deems a drug effective, and all that means is it works better than the placebo; side effects be damned. Doesn’t have to be particularly effective at all to get FDA approval.

Research seems to be one of the areas where there is manipulation of data from multiple levels. Whether it’s the scientists themselves or the people requesting the data. There’s a reason there’s, single, double and triple blind studies. Humans are inherently inclined to bias whether we try to or not. We do our best to mitigate it; but it’s present in most everything.

Anyone who thinks scientific data is sound declines to acknowledge that it was gathered by man, I’d argue bias is always present.


And to challenge a dataset one would have to recreate the study; likely multiple times to ensure that there was no doubt a bias in the sample based on the standard deviation of multiple samples. Which requires a significant amount of money to challenge; then years in court if you do find you have a case, most likely for the company you’re suing just to dissolve itself and rebrand.

There’s lies, damn lies, and statistics.

People are taught to read data, not analyze it. But the answers lie in the scrutiny

[330ci]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

To go through your points.
No, I'm a retired HVAC business owner without any solar panels. I looked at it but it doesn't work out for me.

As I said, Lithium is being phased out or at least replaced in car batteries. The demand for lithium is large of course will level out as sodium etc take over.

The solar is heating up the earth remark makes no sense. I won't say you are wrong and I will research that statement but the earth absorbs the heat which goes directly into the Earth/Sea.
solar panels absorb roughly 25% of that heat (rising to 30%+ in the next few years) so it is actually taking that heat away from direct absorbtion.
.
IIRC The reason they don't cover the Sahara with black panels is that it would alter the entire globes weather patterns.

As regards disposal. Great strides have been made in recycling. Blades are now or will be soon, broken up and recycled.


Solar is mainly glass which can be crushed and the cells melted down.


As i say Lithium may well not be used in anywhere near the quantities forecast IF a new breakthrough is found. Given the billions being spent and the Chinese have thousands of scientists working hard on solutions to problems we don't even know about.



This is all relatively new and solutions are being thought up daily but as I said growing pains always happen. You simply cannot compare against legacy energy worse, the legacy energy was very complacient. Happy to pump out toxic waste in the chase of the dollar. IF it had cleaned up it's act decades ago maybe we wouldn't need a new solution or it wasn't worth persuing. But they didn't so others decieded enough was enough.

I’ve trimmed down your post a bit to keep focused on the facts here.

“Solar panels absorb 25% of heat so they actually take heat away*

That means they’re reflecting 75% of the heat back into the atmosphere.

“They don’t cover the Sahara because that would alter global weather patterns”

You mean like global warming which you acknowledge in your first post is BS?

“Blades are now, or will be soon broken down before disposal”

I am not aware of any active recycling programs for carbon blades or any near term projects that will be feasible at scale.


“As I say, lithium very well may not be used in the future.”


Then why go through the trial and error of destroying the environment and potentially poisoning our major freshwater deposits in the process instead of just finding a better alternative from the start? Most experts agree that lithium isn’t a long term solution to energy storage. Everyone has been talking about how far battery tech has come over the last 20 years, but it’s pretty much the same thing as early hybrids 25-30years ago. When they have something solid state that’s ready, let’s see it; we’ll get there doesn’t really cut it. There are a lot of issues that need to be sorted for green energy to work.



To finish your reasoning with the essence that “we’re going to have to cut some corners and destroy the environment in pursuit of better technology, that might have less detriment to society in the future” is the most insane logic I’ve ever come across and it’s ever present in just about every facet of society today.

Pipelines would be a far better way to reduce our carbon footprint while scientists research safe, scalable technologies.

Elon has even said the value in Tesla isn’t its vehicles, but the data derived from them. Grid issues in Texas and California have shown that we’re not prepared for a country full of electric cars if we really want to go down the reasons why we’re stuck with gas for another 20+ years.


Sometimes it’s best to stick with the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don’t. I’m all for the pursuit of science, better technology and a cleaner earth. But the concessions necessary to make your argument fallible are just too much. There’s a reason why every major auto company has abandoned their “all electric by 2030-2035” pledges.

All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

When it comes to c02 emissions planes blow away cars by a long shot anyways. And lord knows the FAA isn’t certifying any electric planes anytime soon, more are major airliners abandoning/demanding their producers go electric.

Realistically Nuclear and hydrogen energy are the only correct answers for the future. Turbine blades should be made from Titanium or other lightweight recyclable materials otherwise they should be banned. Hydro electric is okay in some circumstances but it really alters the environment far more than is acceptable.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

'Bought Scientists'? Surely not.

That’s from the 50s if you go back to the 20s they will have doctors recommending cigarettes for your health

[RichardBartlett]

I’ve trimmed down your post a bit to keep focused on the facts here.

“Solar panels absorb 25% of heat so they actually take heat away*

That means they’re reflecting 75% of the heat back into the atmosphere.

It doesn't affect anything, it's either heat absorbed into the earth or reflected.

“They don’t cover the Sahara because that would alter global weather patterns”

You mean like global warming which you acknowledge in your first post is BS?

No weather and climate are two admittedly connected but different things. You are conflating the two. .

“Blades are now, or will be soon broken down before disposal”

I am not aware of any active recycling programs for carbon blades or any near term projects that will be feasible at scale.

Again as I said 'green' is a new energy development. Same as the oil industry wasted billions of barrels in the early days as it was thought an unending source. Blades were buried traditionally for expediency, cost and a lack of technical ability. But technology has changed and blades are being made from recyclable materials.

"Today, around 85-90% of wind turbines' total mass can be recycled and have established recycling practices in place. But the legacy blades are challenging to recycle due to the composite materials used in their production."


“As I say, lithium very well may not be used in the future.”


Then why go through the trial and error of destroying the environment and potentially poisoning our major freshwater deposits in the process instead of just finding a better alternative from the start?

It's excessive to suggest lithium mining 'is destroying the environment.' without mentioning every other mining process..
Sure there is short term damage but that can be cleaned up. with the right will to do. Most things rarely start at their end game, everything develops as technical develops. Or would you prefer we all drove Model T fords? Its a strawman argument.

Most experts agree that lithium isn’t a long term solution to energy storage. Everyone has been talking about how far battery tech has come over the last 20 years, but it’s pretty much the same thing as early hybrids 25-30years ago. When they have something solid state that’s ready, let’s see it; we’ll get there doesn’t really cut it. There are a lot of issues that need to be sorted for green energy to work.

your whole argument seems based on "lets get to the end game first" Life just doesn't happen like that. Plus to suggest battery tech hasn't progressed is quite incredulous. It has advanced incredibly.

My 2012 Lexus has a battery energy density of around 50w/kg. There are after market replacements at over 300 w/kg. at 50% of the weight. They were Li tech they are now already moved onto S0-ion tech. advancing even further.
https://sodiumhybrid.com/products/pr...e6K8TYJlnHu0yr



To finish your reasoning with the essence that “we’re going to have to cut some corners and destroy the environment in pursuit of better technology, that might have less detriment to society in the future” is the most insane logic I’ve ever come across and it’s ever present in just about every facet of society today.

Again we won't 'destroy the enviorment by going green'. That's an over reaction.

Pipelines would be a far better way to reduce our carbon footprint while scientists research safe, scalable technologies.

Pipelines sending down fossel fuel doesn't 'solve ' the problem. It may reduce shipping but setting light to oil based fuels isn't totally smart.

Elon has even said the value in Tesla isn’t its vehicles, but the data derived from them. Grid issues in Texas and California have shown that we’re not prepared for a country full of electric cars if we really want to go down the reasons why we’re stuck with gas for another 20+ years.

texas for example is committed in installing more solar than the whole of the rest of the USA. they know life is changing. No one solution solves all problems but to dismiss solar because it can't is extremely short sighted and fails to see the potential.

Sometimes it’s best to stick with the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don’t. I’m all for the pursuit of science, better technology and a cleaner earth. But the concessions necessary to make your argument fallible are just too much. There’s a reason why every major auto company has abandoned their “all electric by 2030-2035” pledges.

Every major auto maker is in dire trouble because they failed to comprehend how far Tesla have and will move the game forward. legacy automakers have had their heads in the sand for too long. Poor development, lack of forward planning. Just same-o-same-o stuff. Tesla (and the Chinese) revolusionised design and production of cars. Mega casting is just one tech that Tesla shocked the others with. Their ability to 'think outside the box' has left Legacy nearing banckrupcy.
The Germans are totally Fooked.Closing plants and laying off staff. GM & Ford will follow. Toyota Honda etc are again all fooked . The reason they are trying to stop Ev's is because they missed the boat are are trying to hold back the sea King Canute style..

All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

No it just isn't, it's just in it's infancy and the future is far beyond our comprehension.

When it comes to c02 emissions planes blow away cars by a long shot anyways. And lord knows the FAA isn’t certifying any electric planes anytime soon, more are major airliners abandoning/demanding their producers go electric.

"And it's not just the FAA that's moving slowly. The Velis Electro is apparently still the only electric aircraft with EASA certification. A lot has been going on in the world in the last 4 years and continues to occur. Yet still technology moves much faster than regulations and as both continue to advance there will likely be more electric aircraft being certified. Not as soon as many would like, but with time the industry will grow." Jan 2024.


Realistically Nuclear and hydrogen energy are the only correct answers for the future. Turbine blades should be made from Titanium or other lightweight recyclable materials otherwise they should be banned. Hydro electric is okay in some circumstances but it really alters the environment far more than is acceptable.

As I have said , solar isn't a one shop stop solution BUT it will play a massive role in power generation. IMHO: For example, all outside car parks should be forced by law to be covered with solar. A simple idea and easy to impliment
In America this would mean a massive uplift in solar without destroying the enviroment. Plus is puts power straight where it needs it, not in some field or offshore..

Blades made now are 95% recyclable. Hydrogen costs more energy that it produces (unless the tech finds a solution)

Apart from the Western world going to sh*t though missmanagement by politicians of both sides and all parties ,but energy wise we are getting there

I guess we all want to get to the same place but just differ on how to get there

[Calatrava r]

I happen to like oil, coal and gas. It is natural, renewable, affordable and, if processed correctly, clean burning. We have made great headways in cleaning up our environment from the days industrial waste and trash just being dumped in the waters worldwide. The climate on earth will do whatever it is going to do.
Just ask the dinosaurs.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by 330ci

Glad someone said it; and to add that whoever is paying the checks can decide not to publish the data if they don’t like the results.

Then when it comes to things like medicine you have to understand what deems a drug effective, and all that means is it works better than the placebo; side effects be damned. Doesn’t have to be particularly effective at all to get FDA approval.

Research seems to be one of the areas where there is manipulation of data from multiple levels. Whether it’s the scientists themselves or the people requesting the data. There’s a reason there’s, single, double and triple blind studies. Humans are inherently inclined to bias whether we try to or not. We do our best to mitigate it; but it’s present in most everything.

Anyone who thinks scientific data is sound declines to acknowledge that it was gathered by man, I’d argue bias is always present.


And to challenge a dataset one would have to recreate the study; likely multiple times to ensure that there was no doubt a bias in the sample based on the standard deviation of multiple samples. Which requires a significant amount of money to challenge; then years in court if you do find you have a case, most likely for the company you’re suing just to dissolve itself and rebrand.

There’s lies, damn lies, and statistics.

People are taught to read data, not analyze it. But the answers lie in the scrutiny

To challenge the dataset the authors need to be willing to share their data. When I submitted papers the reviewers requested my data. There was discussion on data collection, validation, and whether I considered all the other possibilities in my approach. I withdrew one submission to go back and take another approach based on suggestions from a reviewer. The subsequent paper was far stronger than the original as a result of peer review. Good science relies on the free exchange of ideas and data.

People today are making sweeping decisions without reviewing all the data for some fairly provocative assertions. The masses want to believe that humans are capable of being the sole cause of climate change, and are therefore capable of reversing its course. The funding for research supporting this assertion is very easily obtained, whereas the funding opposing the assertion is nearly impossible to obtain. It's very difficult to fund a study to test a popular climate change assertion, so it's very difficult to freely exchange ideas and data that would challenge an assertion. It's not good science.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by Maleg

To challenge the dataset the authors need to be willing to share their data. When I submitted papers the reviewers requested my data. There was discussion on data collection, validation, and whether I considered all the other possibilities in my approach. I withdrew one submission to go back and take another approach based on suggestions from a reviewer. The subsequent paper was far stronger than the original as a result of peer review. Good science relies on the free exchange of ideas and data.

People today are making sweeping decisions without reviewing all the data for some fairly provocative assertions. The masses want to believe that humans are capable of being the sole cause of climate change, and are therefore capable of reversing its course. The funding for research supporting this assertion is very easily obtained, whereas the funding opposing the assertion is nearly impossible to obtain. It's very difficult to fund a study to test a popular climate change assertion, so it's very difficult to freely exchange ideas and data that would challenge an assertion. It's not good science.

I have read in several places that all of mankind's activity accounts for 2 to 3 percent of the total carbon in the atmosphere, with the bulk of carbon coming directly out of the oceans. Sobering thought for sure.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

I have read in several places that all of mankind's activity accounts for 2 to 3 percent of the total carbon in the atmosphere, with the bulk of carbon coming directly out of the oceans. Sobering thought for sure.

Perfect example of what I noted earlier. If taken as a given, the 2 to 3 percent figure is meaningless without understanding it in context. The 2 to 3 percent could be potentially catastrophic or harmless - depends on a whole host of considerations.

Unless by sobering thought you intended us to contemplate how great our contribution to climate change may in fact be, given the “2 to 3 percent” may push the entire system out of balance.

I won’t say the answer rests in either view above but the numbers need to be deeply understood. Scientists make many mistakes, absolutely, but overall when there is general consensus among peer reviewed studies by scientists (and with climate change there is a consensus in causality) I will err on the side of the experts vs the “convenient critics”…

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Perfect example of what I noted earlier. If taken as a given, the 2 to 3 percent figure is meaningless without understanding it in context. The 2 to 3 percent could be potentially catastrophic or harmless - depends on a whole host of considerations.

Unless by sobering thought you intended us to contemplate how great our contribution to climate change may in fact be, given the “2 to 3 percent” may push the entire system out of balance.

I won’t say the answer rests in either view above but the numbers need to be deeply understood. Scientists make many mistakes, absolutely, but overall when there is general consensus among peer reviewed studies by scientists (and with climate change there is a consensus in causality) I will err on the side of the experts vs the “convenient critics”…

Another sobering thought I have read repeatedly is that before mankind began deforesting the planet for habitat and farming, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere were estimated to be 2400 parts per million almost six times more than they are now. Look, I don't have strong position on any of this, but there is a lot of facts the public just doesn't seem to know and there is not much hard science stated on the actual cause and effect of anything. Charting historical temps and carbon levels is not proof of a causal relationship of anything.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Perfect example of what I noted earlier. If taken as a given, the 2 to 3 percent figure is meaningless without understanding it in context. The 2 to 3 percent could be potentially catastrophic or harmless - depends on a whole host of considerations.

Unless by sobering thought you intended us to contemplate how great our contribution to climate change may in fact be, given the “2 to 3 percent” may push the entire system out of balance.

I won’t say the answer rests in either view above but the numbers need to be deeply understood. Scientists make many mistakes, absolutely, but overall when there is general consensus among peer reviewed studies by scientists (and with climate change there is a consensus in causality) I will err on the side of the experts vs the “convenient critics”…

The consensus on causality is that we are in an interglacial period, which means that the planet is supposed to be warming.

As a rule of thumb, any assertion whose results are entirely negative outcomes should be viewed as inherently biased. The popular media calls climate change the "climate crisis". Say no more, eh?

I contend that anything that has been going on for 20,000 years is not a crisis, but maybe there is merit to their argument. But first, let us look at the positive outcomes of global warming. We are no longer in an ice age. North America is no longer covered in glaciers. Most of the US is tillable farmland, growing enough food to feed the world. People can live just about everywhere today. And for the frivolous amongst us, there is a predominance of sunny days and the boating is pretty good in the great lakes left behind by melted glaciers.

All in all, global warming has been great for the USA and western Europe. So why all the gloom and doom? It sells. Research that results in a "cure" is always easier to fund than basic research that merely explains why things work the way they do. In my day, any research with a medical application was easily funded. Today it's the climate crisis that draws the easy dollar.