Confirmation Bias is a new hate term, perhaps.... depends on how you want to take it.
Is is confirmation bias when you have a theory and find out there's actually scientific reason for thinking it might amount to something.
Here's the deal. It's the politics I oppose, not the science. If we have a global warming event going on, whatever it's cause, and we don't actually have an effective response, there's no sense doing a lot of things that won't make any difference.
I could drag in some folks who note that warmer oceans, especially at depth, seem to preceed rises in ambient atmospheric CO2. I know all about the combustion equations producing CO2 and H2O plus the heat we use for various forms of convenient power. I also know about normal decay that is going on in ocean sediments and soils worldwide, which produce more CO2 and more methane, and more chlorinated LMW organic gases than we do. Still, what we do is on top of nature.
The politicization of science is a huge problem, but the advent of a global government with a CO2 tax base/fund for redistribution according to political imperatives is an obscene and totally unjustifiable exploitation of the issue.
My politics says educate the people about the issues, and don't exploit them.
My science gut instinct says we have an ice age in the offing that will change everything we think is important right now. Ice ages are generally preceeded by a temp spike of short duration. I believe it's a signal of a basic climate cycle.... the oceans are moving into a different mode/pattern and warm oceans with warmth at depth enough to outgas a lot of CO2 causes the temp spike, but then the rates of evaporation pick up, and snowfalls at higher altitudes and latitures increase significantly.
But still, the link in the OP would indicate that these events, if relevant, are less significant than the changes in earth/sun relations.
It is "confirmation bias" as well when high-powered intellects with political agendas hijack the science to promote their agenda.
Is is confirmation bias when you have a theory and find out there's actually scientific reason for thinking it might amount to something.
Here's the deal. It's the politics I oppose, not the science. If we have a global warming event going on, whatever it's cause, and we don't actually have an effective response, there's no sense doing a lot of things that won't make any difference.
I could drag in some folks who note that warmer oceans, especially at depth, seem to preceed rises in ambient atmospheric CO2. I know all about the combustion equations producing CO2 and H2O plus the heat we use for various forms of convenient power. I also know about normal decay that is going on in ocean sediments and soils worldwide, which produce more CO2 and more methane, and more chlorinated LMW organic gases than we do. Still, what we do is on top of nature.
The politicization of science is a huge problem, but the advent of a global government with a CO2 tax base/fund for redistribution according to political imperatives is an obscene and totally unjustifiable exploitation of the issue.
My politics says educate the people about the issues, and don't exploit them.
My science gut instinct says we have an ice age in the offing that will change everything we think is important right now. Ice ages are generally preceeded by a temp spike of short duration. I believe it's a signal of a basic climate cycle.... the oceans are moving into a different mode/pattern and warm oceans with warmth at depth enough to outgas a lot of CO2 causes the temp spike, but then the rates of evaporation pick up, and snowfalls at higher altitudes and latitures increase significantly.
But still, the link in the OP would indicate that these events, if relevant, are less significant than the changes in earth/sun relations.
It is "confirmation bias" as well when high-powered intellects with political agendas hijack the science to promote their agenda.
