These threads are very similar to the religious threads in that if you dont side with the group think youre an idiot and a fool.
You're an idiot and a fool if you don't ask questions and just accept whatever you hear.
Most of the people in these threads are layman, including you. I dont really see high level data analysis coming from you either. You are barely understanding the charts coors posts, yet you totally agree with data in which you dont understand.
Strange comprehension. Where did you give the impression that I'm one to offer high level data analysis? Also stange comprehension where you say I totally agree. Counter to your general interests, I know, but please show me something to back up your statements.
Without doing the research for ourselves or being experts in the field it can be hard to breakdown every study. Then it becomes a matter of "well scientists are experts and theyre smarter than you and most of them agree, so unless you create your own data disproving them you must stop dissenting." I and others do not operate that way.
You *do* operate that way everytime you drive/ride your car/bike. Unless you think you can read something on the interwebs and designs better suspension/engines/chassis/brakes/etc? Or, do you put a certain level in trust that the people who went to school for it know what they're doing? The way you argue the subject, it's basically pointless to discuss anything down to the point of whether or not we're even conscious. How do you *know*, but you *could* be lying, you're *not* a *true* scientist...there's just no end to how you weasel out of it.
There are experts who are in the field and even participating in the ipcc reports (like i linked) that are wary of the data and models and scientists chosen to gather the data. Its funny. If john christy himself came in here and said the same thing he said in that interview without anyone knowing who he was, he wouldve been torn apart here. People wouldve laughed, said he was basically a moron or just a political nutjob and told how he didnt discuss exact data points so he has no right to argue. The motherfucker was lead author on the 2001 ipcc report and has some of the exact concerns many here do that are made to look foolish. So is he an idiot too?
The only idiot is the one who doesn't ask questions, but of course he's not an idiot, but why don't you apply your same "he must be lying/corrupt/etc"? It's not like neither side hasn't us tons of reasons to distrust them, so really shouldn't all skeptics be 50/50'ish? Then mix in the things you see like smog that's visible from space, deforestation that's visible from space, human caused extinction of who knows how many species, 100,000 flights a day, a billion cars on the planet, totally measurable change of ocean alkalinity, 14 billion pounds of trash dumped into the ocean every year, 2.6 *trillion* pounds of garbage generated each year....and you're all HHHMMMMMM....I DUNNOOOO GAISSSS. But of course, I'm sure the numbers are all fake and created by smelly hippies who just want to hurt the man.
I am particularly wary of the climate models of which much of this research is based. Ive read about them and i know the trillions of factors they must take into account. But i dont know how to break down a mistake in the software and prove it wrong. I know that every couple years there is a drastic turn in the temperature estimates. It started as like 10°c in 100 years and over time dropped to like 2°c. Now it has started to climb again. Not one of these models saw almost static temperatures or a change of only .16°c in the last 15 or so years. That tells me these models are flawed. But these models are also why we are expected to act. I have an issue with that.
And you should be wary, from all sides, even the one you (and I) support.
There are many other factors i take issue with but in terms of picking apart every study and describing where the data breaks down is not easy in 5 minute blips on barf. It could take many hours and what would be the point? None of the people fully invested in this are changing their minds. Im supposed to have data analysis with people that think a warm day in february is evidence? There is a couple of people in the field here and i do respect their opinions but smart people can be wrong.
What's the point? The point is that's how to discuss it. Just because it's tough doesn't mean you don't do it. Arguing the high level nonsense is a billion time more pointless. Of course not the warm day in February, we've already established how pointless the micro stuff is. Of course smart people are wrong, but you can piggyback on their process and see if you come to the same conclusion. Not that it's absolute, but set it aside for future examining information in totality.
