Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[LeoThomson]

If an organization that wants to tax me says the science is settled that I'm the problem, and solution is to tax me ...

You are lumping scientist in with politicians, the scientist tell us there is a problem, it is up to politicians to find a solution, or deny there is a problem.

Other than outright banning the dumping of CO2 created by the combustion of fossil fuels, the most effective solution proposed is a Pigovian tax", a tax assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in activities that create adverse side effects for society. Adverse side effects are those costs that are not included as a part of the product's market price. These include environmental pollution, strains on public healthcare from the sale of tobacco products, and any other side effects that have an external, negative impact. (Government can decide to distribute the proceeds to induviduals as a lump sum when they file their tax returns.)

Pigovian Tax: Definition, Purpose, Calculation, and Examples

A Pigovian tax is a tax assessed against businesses that engage in activities that create negative side effects, such as environmental pollution.

www.investopedia.com

‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax (Published 2017)

A group of senior Republican figures, led by James A. Baker III, says that taxing carbon emissions is the fairest way to address a warming climate.

www.nytimes.com

One of the things that make it more efficient than other proposals, is that it would also be applied to imports from countries that don't clean up their industries, taking away the advantage polluters have by moving production elsewhere where they do not have to clean up after themselves.

If an organization that wants persuade people not only spends money to run ads, but also contracts with industry to de-platform those who make contradictory statements, passes laws to take away licenses from doctors who spread what they consider misinformation ...

Bad doctors should have their licenses removed.

Political parties, and MSM, have "products" to sell.

So think! How would YOU solve the problem thousands of scientists all over the world have stated IS a problem?

 

[12VoltInstalls]

the scientist tell us there is a problem, it is up to politicians to find a solution, or deny there is a problem.

must be an alternate reality that I don’t know about

most complex problems are not approachable with infinitives or 1’s/0’s

 

[LeoThomson]

must be an alternate reality that I don’t know about

Correction, there is a reality you do not know about. (Or more correctly you do know it, but refuse to admit it it to yourself.)

most complex problems are not approachable with infinitives or 1’s/0’s

I am not suggesting there are only 2 ways of solving the problem of global warming. One strategy is the ostrich solution. (deny there is a problem, or ignore the problem and leave the mess to be cleaned up by future generations)

However if you deny there is a problem that needs to be solved, you are not going to be part of the solution and we do need practical solutions.

 

[Hedges]

Bad doctors should have their licenses removed.

Does "Bad Doctor" mean one that voices an opinion that differs from "scientific consensus"?

Oxymoron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that this could include telling a patient that covid is airborne.
That a mask could protect against covid.
That a mask could not protect against covid.
That the mRNA vaccine could cause Bells Palsy.
That it could cause heart attacks.
That its effectiveness could wane to approximately zero within two months.

Newsom signs bill to police California doctors on COVID-19 misinformation

One critic argued that “while well-intentioned, this legislation will have a chilling effect on medical practice, with widespread repercussions that could paradoxically worsen patient care.&#…

www.mercurynews.com

Court Strikes California's Muzzling Of Covid-Dissenting Doctors

The court’s decision represents a victory against authoritarianism, but censorship by Covid scaremongers should still trouble Americans.

thefederalist.com

The California law defines “disinformation” as “misinformation the [physician] deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead,” while “misinformation” is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

I think government later made statements that this would only apply to the (confidential) discussion between doctors and their patients, not to public "speech" made by the doctor.

 

[LeoThomson]

Does "Bad Doctor" mean one that voices an opinion that differs from "scientific consensus"?

In part, if you disagree with the consensus, there are avenues to show why you disagree, but even you are right and you can not persuade the majority, to bad. That is how licensing works, the same is true for most professional bodies that provide licenses to practice. I am not saying it is perfect, but do you have a better idea to make sure professionals follow "best practices"?

 

[Hedges]

Yes (regarding professional legislators).

Remove them from office if they pass a law that violates the 1st amendment to the Constitution, or any other part of it.

The majority? Doctors must not be bound to following the majority. They see individual patients and (should be) cognizant of medical issues particular to that individual.

Problem here is that "Medical" and "Science" decisions were passed down from on high, and a doctor who contradicts that to their patient would be stripped of his license.

That goes against everything medicine, and this country, is about.

Should a doctor only be allowed to say the mRNA vaccine is "safe and effective", nothing else?

On the bright side, a court did issue a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of the law. But after a period of time when doctors were forbidden to provide what they believed was best care for their patients. And this pause was due to "vagueness".

Should professionals be required to follow "best practices"?
Meaning one and only, not considering individual circumstance, or alternate approaches?
Should all doctors always prescribe Tylenol, at the recommended dose, never aspirin?
(hint: after decades, the dosage recommendation was reduced, due to the harm it causes.)

 

[LeoThomson]

Yes (regarding professional legislators).

They get voted out by the majority...

Remove them from office if they pass a law that violates the 1st amendment to the Constitution, or any other part of it.

I doubt you can, you can only vote them out, or they get removed by the majority of the legislators who passed the laws.

The majority? Doctors must not be bound to following the majority. They see individual patients and (should be) cognizant of medical issues particular to that individual.

So any one can prescribe anything, why not do away with the need for perscriptions altogether and allow people to buy any substance, they want instead?

Problem here is that "Medical" and "Science" decisions were passed down from on high, and a doctor who contradicts that to their patient would be stripped of his license.

Again, that is how most professional certification works, you also have to pass the exams first.

That goes against everything medicine, and this country, is about.

I have no idea what your country is about, there are way to many contradictions. I am sure you can think of many (in both parties) The problem is that you guys focus on all the wrong things.

Should a doctor only be allowed to say the mRNA vaccine is "safe and effective", nothing else?

The doctor can reccomend another vaccine if they believe it works better for the patient, they have even prescribed ivermectin, even though they knew it doesn't work.

On the bright side, a court did issue a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of the law. But after a period of time when doctors were forbidden to provide what they believed was best care for their patients. And this pause was due to "vagueness".

No idea what is happening there, just ignore the politicians...

Should professionals be required to follow "best practices"?

They are not allowed to be negligent, if they are, they will lose their license to practice. Shouldn't they?

Meaning one and only, not considering individual circumstance, or alternate approaches?
Should all doctors always prescribe Tylenol, at the recommended dose, never aspirin?
(hint: after decades, the dosage recommendation was reduced, due to the harm it causes.)

Things change as we learn/discover new things, that is perfectly normal. But if you do harm to another person, by giving advise that contradicts "best practices" you will get sued and hopefully, removed from the profession.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

But if you do harm to another person, by giving advise that contradicts "best practices" you will get sued and hopefully, removed from the profession.

What’s hilarious about your novels is you are either uninformed or choose to ignore the fact that many of the Doctors of Disinformation were telling it how they saw it; and with the benefit of hindsight were vindicated in fact even if their divergence from consensus served to ruin their career in some cases.
Covid is a perfect example of how consensus fails to be an adequate provision to posit opinion as fact.
The most glaring support for my argument is on the CDC website : they recommend we get covid vaxed when the current circulation of covid mutation is 100% resistant to the mRNA “vaccine” which begs the question: what are we vaccinating against?

And I’m mostly ignoring the ‘undesirable outcomes’ as reported from numerous countries including Germany, New Zealand, Israel, the Netherlands at a rate high enough that no other vaccinations in history were permitted to go to market from trials with a fraction of those reports.

Consensus and authority both fail in practice. So I’m not buying that consensus thing.

As a skeptic i am not encumbered by the resident fallacies and am able to decide what I think is true after researching global warning information because my eyes are opened.

 

[D71]

global warming is a natural process NASA has stated this and they also say there is a cooling process back and forth.

when the long over due pole swaps happen none of this matters anyway... continental drift. massive cooling flooding panic fear porn bottles of lotion or it gets the hose again then the sun blows up and an asteroid hits earth comet cosmic... carl sagan
""

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”​

""https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/632474-i-have-a-foreboding-of-an-america-in-my-children-s

A disturbing 1995 prediction by Carl Sagan accurately describes America today

In 1995, Carl Sagan published the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, which describes a dystopian America.

bigthink.com

 

[D71]

When Carl Sagan Warned the World About Nuclear Winter

Before the official report came out, the popular scientist took to the presses to paint a dire picture of what nuclear war might look like

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Bob B]

I have Leo on ignore .... for very good reasons .... but I can see you guys are arguing against him.

The mere fact that Leo is arguing that human caused global warming is real ... on its own .... is enough reason for me to doubt that it is true.

 

[LeoThomson]

What’s hilarious about your novels is you are either uninformed or choose to ignore the fact that many of the Doctors of Disinformation were telling it how they saw it; and with the benefit of hindsight were vindicated in fact even if their divergence from consensus served to ruin their career in some cases.

If you use that as an argument, no medical treatment would be correct and we should do away with the medical profession and the various parts of climate science, which is obviously ludicrous. What you are proposing is that we ignore expert opinion and instead pick what to believe or not and post that on-line as facts instead of doing your own studies and publishing papers to be shared with actual scientists.

Covid is a perfect example of how consensus fails to be an adequate provision to posit opinion as fact.

No it isn't.

The most glaring support for my argument is on the CDC website : they recommend we get covid vaxed when the current circulation of covid mutation is 100% resistant to the mRNA “vaccine” which begs the question: what are we vaccinating against?

New mutations are found all the time and the two main arguments against the vaccines is that they are produced to quickly which makes them unsafe and that they are not developed fast enough to keep up with the new strains. In reality the vaccines are safe and protect against severe illness, I have posted the difference in mortality rates between the un-vaxxed and the vaxxed before. Why are you ignoring those facts?

And I’m mostly ignoring the ‘undesirable outcomes’ as reported from numerous countries including Germany, New Zealand, Israel, the Netherlands at a rate high enough that no other vaccinations in history were permitted to go to market from trials with a fraction of those reports.

Link?

Consensus and authority both fail in practice. So I’m not buying that consensus thing.

In science, consensus changes in the light of new evidence, you can deny the current evidence all you like, the consensus still exists. Parents have authority over children, justice system over society. Even in anargy the authority is you.

As a skeptic i am not encumbered by the resident fallacies and am able to decide what I think is true after researching global warning information because my eyes are opened.

You are not a skeptic, you deny the evidence, even when I tried to boil it down to the 3 most basic things, you could not bring yourself to admit the fact man made global warming is happening. You need to ask yourself "why?", and don't post the answer here, because you will just feel the need to defend your ideas, instead of questioning why you are unable to accept the science.

Maybe this site will help?

Global Warming - The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Articles on global warming and climate change.

www.csmonitor.com

 

[12VoltInstalls]

ludicrous.

What you are proposing is that we ignore expert opinion and instead pick what to believe or not and post that on-line as facts instead of doing your own studies and publishing papers to be shared with actual scientists.

Expected response. You get confused with the story and interject a black-and-white neo-infinitive because the logic and facts frustrate what you illogically want to believe. Then you wrap the package with an untruth neatly packaged as a hole in the other party’s argument.
“What you are proposing” is not what I’m proposing- not at all. What I was actually stating was actual facts that actually occurred in actual contemporary reality.

That’s what’s ludicrous- a totally off-base conclusion that fraudulently gives you the opportunity to defend the undefendable.
When science becomes a consensus before it is vetted and positioned then it solves for the wrong constant: the equation is flawed. That’s my point that anyone can understand by observing the abstract and applying it logically.

have posted the difference in mortality rates between the un-vaxxed and the vaxxed before. Why are you ignoring those facts?

I’m not ignoring them. They are past data, no longer relevant. I tend not to promote untruths and the truth is the current strains/variants are immune escaped. That is science which you claim to defend but then you don’t believe it yourself.

New mutations are found all the time and the two main arguments against the vaccines is that they are produced to quickly which makes them unsafe and that they are not developed fast enough to keep up with the new strains

See? Total abject abandonment of logic: those aren’t two arguments on one hand, they are the same. And the main arguments against the vaxcine have to do with inadequate pre-trials, high incidence of related complications including deaths, and the fraudulent untested claims which the developers made and - at least in the US- the government health authorities promoted.
This isn’t a covid discussion but

No it isn't.

it is relevant to show the dubious directions science is headed. Covid fiascos are only a few years old, but climate fiascos are 30+ years old. And similar unvetted claiming processes have been used for both.

reality the vaccines are safe and protect against severe illness, I have posted the difference in mortality rates between the un-vaxxed and the vaxxed before. Why are you ignoring those facts?

I’m not ignoring those opinions, but the very little allusion of fact in that statement is tainted because it’s beguiling.

Link?

Peer reviewed papers that you can look up yourself. With your style of slander that’s a poorly veiled ‘doesn’t exist’ spin imho. You’re in Europe and claim to be informed so you have to have heard of the German study of these deaths and the worldwide risks for males under 30 or 40 after vaxing. This is real, not rumor, not disinformation. Some countries have even stated they no longer recommend vaxing for these groups because of the issues.

you can deny the current evidence all you like, the consensus still exists

Again this is a total fallacy: the current evidence of what you speak isn’t science in many cases. Of a scientific nature, sure, but not agreed upon by many vetted experts aka PhDs and lettered BA scientists.

I’m fully aware that a consensus exists.

But including those two ideas in one sentence as if they support or explain the other is merely argumentative - not a valid argument.

You are not a skeptic, you deny the evidence, even when I tried to boil it down to the 3 most basic things, you could not bring yourself to admit the fact man made global warming is happening

Those are your flawed opinions because it fits your dichotomous prejudice.
I don’t deny evidence. You are putting words in my mouth, 100%, and wrapping the flavor of facts around a bundle of ideas that beg testing out and developing new questions. Instead, they are frozen in time in 1992 with a dubious postulate that is supplanting science.
I do, however, question the veracity of claims with holes in them. Because I want to have faith in science.

 

[svetz]

What’s hilarious ... is you are either uninformed or choose to ignore the fact that many of the Doctors of Disinformation

Right back at yeah! The IPCC was created specifically by multiple countries just to get to the truth. The overwhelming majority of scientists and science institutions concur with their findings. Even the oil companies agree with them. Who doesn't get it? Those that still believe the misinformation and are unwilling to cite them.

...Covid is a perfect example of how consensus fails to be an adequate provision to posit opinion as fact.

It's natural for there to be a lot of panic on something new and unknown. It's only ever not-panic in hind-sight when the worse happens, then it's why didn't they do more? Climate change is not new and is fairly well understood. You may recall when it came out there were also some very crazy statements. Regardless, Covid has it's own threads so I tend to ignore it here. Those threads also point out various studies for things (e.g., a total of 3 deaths in the U.S. from blood clots with the J&J vaccine). But, whatever the real truth there is, it has no real relevance in this thread other than there is always a lot of misinformation and some people believe and act on it.

As a skeptic i am not encumbered by the resident fallacies and am able to decide what I think is true after researching global warning information because my eyes are opened.

Keep telling yourself that. What you're really doing is disregarding ALL evidence of its existence by hand-waving it away (i.e., confirmation bias). In return you offer NO evidence that the IPCC is bad, the science is bad, or that denier science is correct. I understand why you don't want to present such evidence, and it's kind of you to not want us to hurt ourselves laughing.

global warming is a natural process NASA has stated this and they also say there is a cooling process back and forth.

It is a natural process. That doesn't mean humans can't affect it. But if you trust NASA, here's what they say on climate change [ref]:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

Evidence. Brief descriptions of some of the key scientific observations that our planet is undergoing abrupt climate change.

Causes. A concise discussion of the primary climate change causes on our planet.

Effects. A look at some of the likely future effects of climate change, including U.S. regional effects.

Ultimately it doesn't make a difference if it's natural or man-made as the temperature is inarguably going up. From the fossil records, when it was 4 degrees warmer, crocodiles lived above the arctic circle. There's going to be a lot of suffering if that happens, so it's reasonable to want to slow it down and reverse it. There are a variety of ways to do it, not increasing greenhouse gases is just one of the safest.

...Carl Sagan...when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media...

Flat earthers, deniers, and a host of others. Of course, everyone always thinks it is the other guy who is swayed by the media. Interestingly, Carl Sagan testified before Congress that global warming would be a problem in 1985. Smart guy.

Is it the end for Republicans? The good news is the democrats and independents are solidly on board. Despite the anti-rhetoric, the many republicans believe in climate change. Republicans under 35 are around 60%, guess that makes me young at heart ; -). The party dug in early that it was a hoax because the democrats embraced it and then doubled down. So, hard for them to back away, but stupid for them not to. It's a tough problem and could use their experience for a realistic and manageable solution. The issue is beyond politics now. Many republicans like myself feel they have to vote for fiscally irresponsible parties because it's more important than the other issues. In the last state election I voted for republicans who were pro-climate/environment, carefully confirming their stance (well, as much as I could anyway... their positions are always sunshine and roses). Then they all voted with the party against solar in favor of utilities with only the utility's report, disregarding Florida law stating the numbers had to be independently reviewed. DeSantis vetoed it, but I learned my lesson. Until the party does a 180 I'll be voting democratic unless the opponent has something seriously wrong with them or the candidate has proved themselves.

...The mere fact that Leo is arguing that human caused global warming is real ... on its own .... is enough reason for me to doubt that it is true.

That's an interesting argument. He says solar power is real and that the Earth is round too; so obviously you do agree on some things. It's great to celebrate different beliefs, it's when a belief is based on misinformation that folks want to help the other guy out. It's okay to be at an impasse like 12VoltsInstalled and myself. I worked through the believer and disbeliever math I could find in the thread and that's what changed my mind. He did the same and didn't change his mind, you go 12Vi - power to you!

The original goal of the thread was to look deeply into the issue as I was very skeptical. Now I just want to share what I learned with fence sitters by pointing them to where they can find answers to questions that they have.

So, if you're not sure and have a question or a factoid as to why you think it's true or not true I'd urge you to post it and discuss it with others to see how solid it is. One thing is for sure, there's both sides represented in this thread so you'll get both viewpoints. And probably more opinions than anyone cares to read.

 

[aenyc]

While people talk about banning cow farts because "climate change", the usual pundits seem silent on the REAL Ecological Disaster

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

"However, that operation sent large plumes of smoke containing vinyl chloride, phosgene, hydrogen chloride, and other gases into the air as the flames from the controlled burn raged on for days. Phosgene in particular is a highly toxic gas that can cause vomiting and respiratory issues. The toxicity of phosgene gas is so potent that it was previously used as a chemical weapon during the First World War."

Carbon Dioxide.....ROFL

 

[svetz]

That's a great example of the image types I spoke of in #328, the timescale changes on the X-axis three times. It's so broad you can't see the actual cyclic variations. All that graph shows is the Earth has been slowly cooling overall. The labels are also misleading in terms of talking about climate change. For example 15 million to 34 million years ago is labeled as coolhouse, although the temperature is at +4 degrees from where we're at now. Finally, the extrapolation of the IPCC data without uncertainties is basically criminal fear-mongering.

Given the temperature follows the CO2 ppm, if you look at just the last few thousand years you can see the climate cycles have somewhat stabilized. Modern humans didn't appear until around ~250,000 years ago, going back millions of years lets you know what's happened on the Earth, but not how it affects our chances of survival or the upheavals to come. The Toba catastrophe theory postulates it was so cold for so long 70,000 years ago humans almost went extinct. 10,000 years ago it was so cold that Wolly Mammoths did go extinct.

When it gets warm, do species go extinct? They do, but the survivors migrated to the north (e.g., crocodiles living above the arctic circle when the global temperature was only 4 degrees higher). If they can. The Permian Mass Extinction Event is now believed to have been caused by natural warming [ref]:

New research from the University of Washington and Stanford University combines models of ocean conditions and animal metabolism with published lab data and paleoceanographic records to show that the Permian mass extinction in the oceans was caused by global warming that left animals unable to breathe.

#94 looks at the oxygen levels needed for modern fish to survive.

The other thing about that graph is extrapolating to the year 2300, it makes it look like we're going to hit +12 degrees in 20 minutes or so. The graph does not show the range of uncertainty and those greatly magnify the farther out in time you go, it's hard enough to predict to 2100. The image to the right might give you a better idea as to the levels of uncertainties with the best science we have. Even with that uncertainty we know enough to know the temperature will continue to rise drastically on our current course.

Finally, the graph used the extreme edge (i.e., +12 at 2300) rather than midrange (+8) or the low of +2.5°C for RPC8.5. Here's the IPCC data blown out to 2300 with uncertainties. Note that the Earth hasn't been at +8°C since the Eocene.

 

[aenyc]

Any discussion about “climate emergencies” needs to start with the vital acknowledgment that there remains to be ZERO credible evidence of any “man-made climate change”. That fact needs to be the starting basis of any discussion.
Indeed, all the credible scientific data suggests that any changes to the climate are occurring due to unstoppable natural factors, and are cyclical in nature.
Thus by definition EV’s, windmills, solar, and “biofuels” are all FAKE solutions for the FAKE problem of “mad-made climate change”.
Finally, by definition, anyone who is promoting the “man made climate change” scam must be profiting from it and/or simply uneducated.

 

[LeoThomson]

They are past data, no longer relevant

United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status

Death rates are calculated as the number of deaths in each group, divided by the total number of people in this group. This is given per 100,000 people.

ourworldindata.org

 

[LeoThomson]

Any discussion about “climate emergencies” needs to start with the vital acknowledgment that there remains to be ZERO credible evidence of any “man-made climate change”. That fact needs to be the starting basis of any discussion.
Indeed, all the credible scientific data suggests that any changes to the climate are occurring due to unstoppable natural factors, and are cyclical in nature.
Thus by definition EV’s, windmills, solar, and “biofuels” are all FAKE solutions for the FAKE problem of “mad-made climate change”.
Finally, by definition, anyone who is promoting the “man made climate change” scam must be profiting from it and/or simply uneducated.

You might want to label this post as sarcasm, or are you really this stupid?

 

[svetz]

I know it's a hot topic with a lot of emotion, but would ask that covid posts be kept on Covid threads and not posted here as this thread already has enough passion.

I'd also like to ask that we keep the conversation civil and not resort to labeling. It's only natural for people to have opinions on this, and there's a lot of vested interested to spin the issue.

Thanks!

 

[12VoltInstalls]

Who doesn't get it? Those that still believe the misinformation and are unwilling to cite them.

What you want to not believe doesn’t equal disinformation. That’s why I’m a skeptic. The consensus has holes in their theory but aren’t willing to discuss them.

it's hard enough to predict to 2100.

…and it doesn’t reflect any considerations of the greening of the landmasses due to agriculture and other activities that use/need CO2 and do have a countering effect.

looks at Noctilucent clouds which occur ~80 km up and are not a part of the IPCC models.

…and in some models have a beneficial effect

Even with
that uncertainty we know enough to know the temperature will continue to rise drastically on our current course.

yet some credentialed scientists do not concur.

That is the nature of the issue: if easily obtainable opinions to the contrary exist yet are being poo-pooed, the more difficult alternate science one could suggest is not even being pursued.

It’s not that I think the divergent opinions are right- or even wrong- it’s that ‘we’ aren’t asking the questions. And that leaves me skeptical.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

What you're really doing is disregarding ALL evidence of its existence by hand-waving it away (i.e., confirmation bias). In return you offer NO evidence that the IPCC is bad, the science is bad, or that denier science is correct. I understand why you don't want to present such evidence, and it's kind of you to not want us to hurt ourselves laughing.

That’s pretty much a good summary of why I’m a skeptical learner.

You do a great job with some of the Ipcc data explanations but when you go down this road it makes me- and many others- take a step back and say, “wait a minute. Something’s wrong here. They’ve used baseless argumentation instead of continuing with a sound argument. So they accuse “me” of confirmation bias but provided no tangible argument.”
And a skeptic is reborn.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

Any discussion about “climate emergencies” needs to start with the vital acknowledgment that there remains to be ZERO credible evidence of any “man-made climate change”

I’m not convinced that this is 100% fact, either.

Just the clearing skies over Boston, LA, Chicago since the 1970s sorta shows man’s activities and corrections thereof can affect conditions in a large (relatively small globally) area. Emissions reductions are responsible for this.

Since even many so-called ‘deniers’ in the scientific community acknowledge various data while being cautious about labeling it ‘global warning.’

Thus by definition EV’s, windmills, solar, and “biofuels” are all FAKE solutions for the FAKE problem of “mad-made climate change”.
Finally, by definition, anyone who is promoting the “man made climate change” scam must be profiting from it and/or simply uneducated.

An element of truth but not necessarily absolute.

 

[svetz]

... I’m a skeptic. The consensus has holes in their theory but aren’t willing to discuss them.

What facts are there that the consensus has holes exists?
If someone had a flaw that disproved climate then it would be brought to light...it always is (e.g., the church denied the Earth was round until 1822). It'll be really sad if it is a hoax and we spent trillions on it. But it'll be a lot worse if it isn't a hoax and we didn't spend money on it.

You probably remember all the skepticism and debates on the ozone layer from CFCs and all the dire predictions. That the science was flawed and countless scientists argued against it? Then none of those predictions came true and the hole even repaired itself. Were the deniers right, or was it because we took action? I don't know, never really looked into it.

…and it doesn’t reflect any considerations of the greening of the landmasses due to agriculture and other activities that use/need CO2 and do have a countering effect.

Beg to differ, they factor that in. Also see Chapter 8 Agriculture, and Chapter 11 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

…and in some models have a beneficial effect

Change is always good for somebody. I believe a lot of plants will do better with a warmer climate and more CO2. The ones not underwater anyway. ; -)

I wrote about Noctilucent clouds in #64 I think they do act somewhat as a buffer and the science is still weak around them (and aerosols in my opinion). NASA made a correlation last July with them, bet they update their model before long.

From the modeling perspective, given how they get the cloud reflectivity it might be moot. But, it also doesn't look like it's enough that we don't have to do anything, especially at RCP8.5 levels. That said, they have made a lot of progress, Chapter 7 on Aerosols might interest you.

...yet some credentialed scientists do not concur....

Not saying they don't exist, looked for hard enough you can find anything on the internet. But isn't that more confirmation bias if you have to go to those extremes?

...if easily obtainable opinions to the contrary exist yet are being poo-pooed, the more difficult alternate science one could suggest is not even being pursued.

Change "opinions" in the above to "facts" and I'd agree with it. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

It’s not that I think the divergent opinions are right- or even wrong- it’s that ‘we’ aren’t asking the questions. And that leaves me skeptical.

What questions do you want to be answered?
To me, it seems clear and well-established that the temperature is rising and it continuing to do so will cause change and strife. Ditto the correlation to GHGs as the causation.

You do a great job with some of the Ipcc data explanations

Thanks!

So they accuse “me” of confirmation bias but provided no tangible argument.”

It's a conversational problem. You provide the opinion that pro arguments are flawed, the IPCC is a bunch of hooey, and all denier arguments are suppressed. Repeatedly without offering any facts to substantiate any of it - that is the opinion becomes the argument against facts. No one can discuss the opinions you hold, they're yours and I wouldn't respect you as much as I do if you didn't have them. But they also aren't any sort of proof.

Facts need to be argued with facts in a meaningful conversation, emotion and rhetoic is what politicians use to confuse issues and get people to side with them regardless of facts. Why post if you don't want to discuss the topic with more than opinions? Or, just state the opinion once and move on. Why even talk about opinions when it's easy to discuss tangibles?

But when you say it's easily proven and offer no proof, well the whole definition of confirmation bias is the ability to find anything on the internet that you want it to say. We've all fallen into that trap, it's part of how we search for things on the internet... you get hits to the query you type in.
It was certainly easy for me to confirm the 30,000 ppm of CO2 on Venus after all and it was from Life, which seemed solid enough I didn't have to vet it. Of course, I got a much better answer after being corrected when I queried "atmospheric composition of venus".

 

[aenyc]

When they are talking about carbon, but completely ignore real pollution (Which is a very REAL problem) they lose all credibility.
Look at all these nasty masks (as just one tiny example) laying around everywhere you look. These things will take forever to decompose and contain a whole myriad of toxic chemicals in them.
Then you have things like lithium extraction, manufacturing process involved in "green technologies" that is a complete environmental disaster, yet noone talks about it - because they dont really give a crap about anyone one of us, or Mother Earth.
All the care about is control and lining up their pockets.