4 ms·
Why not investigate starting with IPCC reports: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ These are reports based on peer-reviewed scientific
by loopz 5y ago
Why not investigate starting with IPCC reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
These are reports based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that yes sometimes have to discount and dispute eachother. The presence of conflicting information does not change the overall picture of greenhouse gases like CO2 which can be tested in any simple lab. It does not change how solar input has increased over millions of years, making the planet much more sensitive to warming due to greenhouse effects.
Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
If you put water on the stove and max the temperature, it is not hard to predict you don't want to keep your hand in that water for too long.
- refurb 5y agoThis doesn’t answer my question at all. This is not about discounting or disputing information, this is about intentionally hiding it.
- loopz 5y agoThat's quite an accusation though. Have you even looked for the information you seek yourself, or do you expect to be spoonfed the information that you currently feel you are missing?
- refurb 5y agoHuh? I replying to the OP comment: "Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads." They clearly stated they are involved in research and are actively not sharing information.
- loopz 5y agoI wouldn't take an online post as credible source of anything. Whatever people say in posts may often be bragging or arrogance, or at least exhaggeration or situational. For example the point about understanding all of this, when you really need monte-carlo simulations of multiple complex mathematical models playing out to make meaningful findings. Not to mention the needed complexity of the models themselves exceed the bandwidth of typical online postings. Anyways, no poster or researcher ever owed you anything. If you want information, you have the responsibility to seek it out yourself. What the poster thinks about could very well be false and unverified information, so may not be the gold you seek. When seeking knowledge about this, dismissing peer-reviewed research and experts would lean heavily over to Dunning-Kruger effect. Why would so many researchers be so stupid as to overlook simple effects, or collaborate in some elaborate scheme. After so many decades of verified results, I would rather ask who are feeding people misinformation and discounting credible research without substantial proof and debunked claims [1]? I would be very sceptical of those who seek to distract for personal gain. People are also inclined to take in information that is somehow reassuring, moreso than factual. There are research I've been following for many years, ie. Henrik Svensmark's papers looked promising. But the research don't explain the added accumulating warming after 1930's and the funding and reasoning is looking suspect and fail to be leading. It would be nice though, if some of the results can be shown to dampen effects of CO2. But I'm no expert either, so will have to trust the consensus of those who work with this deeply in the field, though also read other sources. Both with pinches of salt. Anyways, my main point is, please don't take random online posts too seriously as to think they represent the scope of credible researcher work. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php