I'm mostly just compelled to explain why allowing politicians to vote on scientific research mean the results are no longer science
The Climate Change Research Bill 2015 failed 24-88, meaning scientific consensus is now in denial of global warming
That's not how science works. The politicians are voting on policies, not research
I should have specified, I was talking about the process behind the IPCC reports, and the influence it has had on the field of climate science as a whole.
Ideally you would run your own experiments.
Um, why? I can see empirical data that already exists. It's really cool that you're willing to test things yourself, but a bathroom is not a planet.
A computer model is not even an experiment, soooo... similarly empirical data includes experiments, and I did say ideally.
That's still just trivia though
He says, having linked a bunch of charts showing temperatures skyrocketing
the charts are trivia, yes. There is a difference between an average of temperatures and dynamics of a system.
You have read all the reports right?
Have you? There's like a million of the bloody things. Ain't nobody got time for that.
"I read all five of the IPCC reports as they came out." I was following this field back in the early 90's, there's lots of time to read a major compilation related to a topic you're interested in.
that doesn't matter because I'm trying to use scientific findings in a political discussion
Why? Because it's about politics, not facts.
Fuck's sake man, we have thousands of scientists who do this shit for a living telling us that temperatures are rising fast, our atmospheric carbon levels are absolutely obscene, and the two are inextricably linked.
Then you're sitting here in the wake of the hottest year on record saying, "nuh uh the scientists are all politicians and don't know how to science, I know this because I puffed some balloons around in my bathroom, everything will be daijoubu".
Ah yes, the El Nino was really handy for that too, though it's a bummer to the skeptic crowd that they can't go on about however many years without a temperature rise now.
I'm saying that the "two are inextricably linked" is not a fact, but just for the record, that's the same trick they used back in 88 with the first "global warming is a problem" hearing in Congress as I recall. Hottest part of the year, pointing outside the window "see, it's fucking hot, so this is a problem, so you should believe us" like you did with "hottest year on record" as an argument.
Me? Not even 5/7? Honestly not even sure what came across as trolling there.
It's like a textbook example of concern trolling:
Even the AR5 report had to note that plant productivity has been enhanced by CO2, and would be even in the most dire scenarios. Colder climactic periods sucked, by the way. It's no concidence human civilization didn't take off until the most recent glacial period ended.
Smokey the Tailpipe says "Remember kids, only YOU can prevent glaciation, so give a hoot, pollute!"
Acting like it's some big fucking surprise that reality is complex as if everyone else was too stupid to realize this. Concern trolling of the highest order.
Ahhh, gotcha.
But why limit your august enlightenment to climate science? How about spreading your amazing thinking to medicine? For instance people think that sickle cell anemia is bad but even <mainiac cant be arsed to look up a medical journal> admits that it gives resistance to some infectious diseases. Or how about economics? People act like unemployment is bad. But even the latest Federal Reserve forward guidance statement acknowledged that unemployment puts downward pressure on inflation.
Because I haven't been studying those subjects for years?
No, god didn't grant you with some amazing ability to see both sides of the issue that lesser mortals can only look upon in awe. You are just ignoring the fact that of the two sides of this argument, the importance overwhelmingly weighs more on one side.
There's this thing called, study, research, etc, which can be used to gain an understanding of various subjects.
That was called the precautionary principle btw, and I'm not saying take no action. I'm saying take action on the right things and stop wasting time trying to legislate CO2 as a bogeyman. I also kinda said that of the two sides of the argument, both are endorsing a flawed hypothesis, it's just a matter of how much they support it where the variance comes in.
The only politics at play in climate science are the politicians of the world being divided between delusional denial and paralyzed fear at the magnitude of what's staring them in the face, and has been for many, many years.
Look into the IPCC report development process.