Oddbean

As I said, I know nothing about the IPCC, but the fact that they falsified data doesn't change the fact that in the last few decades, the climate, not only temperature, changed brutally. We should also keep in consideration the timespan in which events happen, not only the absolute values, because time is necessary to adapt. It's clear that "industrialization" moved some values suddenly, and humans have not been able to keep pace with evolution to avoid serious damage. Btw, what IPCC's final goal?

Just because data moved at the same time industrialization happened doesn't equal cause and effect. That's failure to utilize the scientific method. Who compiled the data? Who paid for that data to be compiled? What were their goals? Science is fraught with biases and flat out fraud in all directions. No study is all encompassing and only recently has anyone started paying serious attention to the impact of our sun. If you've been paying attention to the studies that focus on the sun you'll realize pretty quickly that something is changing rapidly to it and that definitely impacts Earth. If the historical climate activist narrative was true we'd all be dead already, but they don't have a very good track record of being right because they use flawed, biased science.

Ben Davidson wrote "The Weatherman's Guide to the Sun" it is a heavily cited work--several hundred sources referenced. He also runs the Suspicious Observers YouTube channel where he covers solar events as they happen as well as regular updates on scientific findings. The purpose of the erroneous narrative is subjective. I'm not interested in that dialogue. It gets political very quickly and I don't play that game. Seek the truth and prepare accordingly.

Thank you, I will try to read it. About the erroneous narrative and underlying interests, I think it is interesting and important to talk about it openly. It may not be a scientific subject, but it helps to understand the positions of individual parties, and thus weigh their aims and intentions.

the problem in all of this is the weaponization and politicization of science and reason into encampments which have nothing to do with an honest desire for truth. and all of is are trying to figure out how to navigate this new norm.

if you were interested youd be looking for that yourself. i think you meant it when you said, “ i dont care what their agenda is” . my statement was more for others who are genuinely still looking for the truth.

Perhaps my language could have been misunderstood. By “I don't care” I meant what I pointed out in the following note, which is that the fact that they may be telling the falsehood does not change the fact that in the last decades the earth system has been put under pressure by many human actions. I know very little about this subject, but I have noticed that there is often a clash on the subject of temperature and global warming, when the environmental issues are much broader. Indeed, temperature is only one parameter to be monitored, but there are many others, such as the presence of chemicals in the air, soil, plants and animals. Or like the incidence of certain diseases. So when I see a graph that focuses on the change in temperature of the planet over 500 million years I sense the risk of bringing attention to a single parameter, which perhaps is indeed completely normal, consequently dragging everything else into denialism. But as I said, I know little about this area and my reaction was probably too knee-jerk, although I think it has its own logic.

Here’s some facts and data for you: The earth is greener than 1970 The earth has more ice than 1970 Government is out of control and using “carbon” fear to brainwash you. Environmentalism (less pollution, clean air clean water) is dead and should be revived- free of the anti-carbon cult. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.antarcticajournal.com/antarctic-ice-sheet-mass-gains-greater-than-losses/