Oddbean

Some data IS manufactured, of course, but a major component of the scientific method is replication, and we have data points over time from institutions that hate each other yet agreeing that CO2 is up and so are temperatures. Unevenly distributed, but of course... Problem = 90% real Solutions = 90% fake

This is literally true, I agree, but we still have warming (how much, when and where are valid questions with uncertain answers), and we need to work out how we are going to adapt, and what interventions will do more good than harm. Most of the proposed interventions are very harmful AND are quite useless.

Yes, it does. To say we have it with it being warming, you are stating that you have a statistically valid trend, which means you have to have some idea of how much. If you do not know where a climate and geographically connected event is occurring, then you cannot say that you know it is happening at all.

variation and change are assigned significance by biased humans. models are created to guide our interpretation of data. these models are supremely weak. i think you'd be surprised at 1) how small the scientific community is 2) how much weight "in my expert opinion" carries 3) how much government money, with strings attached, has been poured into climate study infrastructure and model construction--profoundly influencing scientist's interpretation of data and all data is manufactured. it's physical phenomena transformed into numbers on a page. the whole process of how those numbers are created is rife with bias and error. in this area of climate, the relationship between {number and location of sensors} and {model detail} is the key to understanding how bogus this shit is. source: analytical chemist's (phd + industry) expert opinion 1 climate variation: no duh 2 regional climate trends over time: depends 3 global climate trend over time: unknown 4 significance of regional climate trends over time: depends 5 significance of global climate trend over time: can't answer without #3

1. Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree. We have extensive, distributed and multi-source evidence that the global trend is upwards. That's the /only/ aspect of climate change we DO know with high confidence. Ice cores, fossil pollen ratios in lake sediments, dendrochronology, and then human records since the mid 1800s - they can't all be conspiring. Hell, even limiting it to the "human records", when was the last time Russia and the UK agreed on anything else? 4. Agree 5. Agree, except, #3, where we disagree.

youre still missing the point. the assumption that its a problem is the problem. and all the circular “im wif da Science ™️” talk is rooted in a false paradigm from it’s outset. honestly, i think some of it is about corruption, and some is about egos. Its clear the data from IPCC was falsified and manipulated from the beginning. Anyone can discover and verify that. Anyone ignoring that, and hanging on to Anthropomorphic climate change is kind of engaging in a fetish. Not interested.

I strongly agree with "the assumption that its a problem is the problem". Its a challenge. Problem in some aspects, opportunity in others. More coconuts, fewer polar bears. For my country, anything that lets us "discard our hand" and draw a new climate hand is a massive win, coz we really lucked out in the initial deal. Western Europe, yeah I can see the problem, but turning yourselves into a parody of North Korea definitely won't help...

help me understand what it is that you’re fighting so hard to establish here. you seem to be going in circles. is your basic premise “rising temperatures are real, but its being piggybacked by political interests?” cause if it isnt, i have no idea what youre talking about.

I don't think you understand how that data is gathered. There is so much error and interpretive bias, not only in the simple generation of the numbers, but then assigning them to time, And then comparing with current measurements. There are vast areas of the earth where temperature has never been measured with any reliability and therefore your global trends would be made completely insignificant if there was data from those that varied or differed at all in relation to the current measurements.

Annas-archive.org I always recommend reading actual papers, even to non-experts in any given field. Find the DOI or article name referenced in a regime media puff piece and see what the authors ACTUALLY said, and what their reasons were. Regime media is centrally coordinated and lies with admirable discipline, but industry and academic journals are (for now) allowed quite a bit of latitude. Yes, remote sensing data from satellites IS used to inform climate models, and has been for longer than I've been alive. That doesn't mean any particular climate model is inerrantly correct (none are, they're models), it doesn't mean ice caps will finish melting by any predictable date, and it certainly shouldn't be taken to mean the government has the ability or the inclination to intervene usefully. But the preponderance of evidence, including satellite remote sensing, shows a warming trend. We are going to have to live with that.

Yes, 90% of govt climate interventions being fake was a rhetorical statement. If you have a methodology for measuring both "government" and "fake", please put forward your proposal for us to assess.

A very difficult fact to verify and a globally sized hypothesis that cannot even be tested. You don't seem to have a very strong grasp of the scientific method. I take it you took some chemistry courses in college and that's about where your education regarding the philosophy of science ended.