Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

See what I mean?

They practice scienceism to deny science they don't like.

Never fall for this scam. They'll bait you with the impression of San honest discussion but don't be fooled no matter what you present it'll be wrong because it doesn't affirm their religious beliefs.

They'll also try and claim any skepticism of their holy doctrine is belief in anti evangelical environazism.

It's worthless to try. Leave them to freak out and panic about their doomsday conspiracy.

It's just pretend secularism's version of Harold camping.

 

And yet peer-reviewed research has been repeatedly presented to you.

 

You mean you can't power a first world nation with unicorn farts and rainbows?

Who would have thought?

 

Evangelical environmentalists have no need for peer review

 

Your city might not be representative of your state. Or, your country. Or, the world.

 

Peer review is oriented to ensuring methodology, and other factors of quality and novelty of the paper.

The reviewer isn't responsible for verifying differences between accepted theory and the ideas promoted by the paper.

Considering a paper as falsifying accepted theory without even bothering to verify that is just plain ridiculous.

 

Yeah this is the Evangelical tactic of telling me not to believe my lying eyes.

I'm not a believer sorry.

 

Your ad hom sarcasm is destructive of any sane energy planning, obviously.

The bottom line is that we have more than one issue with energy in America. There are the several weaknesses of our distribution system, even including national security. There are problems with certain methods of energy creation, involving pollution, possible affect on climate, etc. There are specific problems pertaining to dams, nuclear energy, etc. There are opportunities for home solar generation, since that is now profitable for the homeowner. There is a growing clean energy sector - growing at the same rate as America's growth in demand for electricity. There are opportunities for building codes that would allow energy features that are profitable for the owner when amortized over the life of mortgages. Etc. Etc.

So, no single one of those issues is going to dominate all others as we work to meet America's need for energy, including energy distribution.

 

Surely nobody on this board is ridiculous enough to believe that their property represents what is happening world wide.

 

thanks for the compliment that is the point after all.

These are always fun... Let me guess I must accept some sort of dogmatic axiom or I'm a heretic in your religion?

Let's see.

Well no claims that I'm a heretic but some dogmatic axioms.

Is there some sort of devil or antagonist in your religion that's going to punish me or am I considered like the way Islam considers me Haram?

 

Nobody believes your idiotic strawman not even me.

Nice try though.

 

As anyone would note by reading my posts, I just want our policy to be informed by science.

And, by that I don't mean some single scientist working somewhere in the USA or ??? who claims to have refuted what all other scientists support.

So, just cite your science claims.

 

You're the one who claimed your personal feelings about your back yard as being an indication that Earth's temperature isn't changing.

 

The evangelist seems to always suggest their beliefs are fact.

Cherry picking experts that affirm beliefs is a common religious behavior. Often times religions create their own scientists to make claims

No need. See Dunning Kruger effect.

 

Strawman fallacies and gaslighting is something to always watch out for

 

Hays has been cherry picking papers.

I have not, so you can just back off on that.

You're the one trying to keep your story straight while pretending your yard represents the world climate.

 

He's not a believer he doesn't need something to be true you do

Nope the believers either Cherry Pickett themselves or it's been Cherry picked for them.

I never said anything about my yard that was your straw man.

 

Again, peer review doesn't do what very obviously needs to be done.

Peer review is NOT a gatekeeper for currently accepted theory.

And, neither of us would want it to be.

 

Nobody has disagreed that essentially all of Earth's heat comes from the sun.

So, solar cycles will affect warming. Again, nobody has doubted that.

I think you are missing the increasing rate of retention of heat by changes in Earth's atmosphere and other changes (lowering reflectivity, etc.).

By retaining a higher percentage of solar heating, Earth will continue on a warming trend, in synch with solar output.

 

Too often peer review is indeed a gatekeeper for the entrenched status quo.

 

Cooling since 2016.

 

I know there are those who don't get published and believe it was due to content.

Most journals get WAY more papers than they could ever publish - thousands. Plus, they do have measures of how new the ideas in the paper are - favoring new ideas.

Dr. J. Curry has had ideas on this topic. She has proposed that there should be a second tier of journals that publish stuff that may not pass review with the top tier today.

She points out that even if the ideas are partly wrong or otherwise deprecated, they still could contain information and ideas that are useful.

Of course, there are the preprint servers that hold papers that may or may not have been published. There is no review required for placing papers on preprint servers.

Scientists absolutely do monitor the preprint servers for their areas of investigation. They know full well that stuff comes out that doesn't get published for any of several reasons.

Here is a list of preprint servers along with what areas of science they cover:
https://libguides.mssm.edu/preprints/servers

In the end, the "gatekeeper" idea is real to some extent. It's the examination for the quality of workmanship. And, it also ends up causing duplication to be excluded, since there isn't room for all papers.

 

When you don't know something or suspect something is wrong, why don't you just look it up?

Yes. Solar cycles take years - like maybe 10 years. ~2016 was a solar maximum.

We're now close to a solar minimum, starting on the way back up to the next solar maximum.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-forecast-update

This is just one MAJOR reason that one can't just look at raw temperature data.

Depending on exactly what question needs to be answered, it can be necessary to subtract out the solar variation - for example, to see the rate and direction of changes in climate related factors on Earth.

 

In climate science, peer review is too often pal review.

 

Recent solar cycles.