"The argument, the subject, really is just that simple."
I almost lack words at this point. I hope you never come in a decision where you need to judge a scientific inquiry in a way that has consequences for others. At least not about anything more complex than, indeed, whether it is dangerous to jump off a tall building.
At the point where you have to declare that the others are just idiots you KNOW that you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At the very least, you need to spend some time looking into the counter-arguments.
No, I certainly should not just find the ice core data on the internet. To do anything useful with that data I would need to understand how it was gathered, the physical processes that lead to the gases being absorbed, whether gases move within the ice after freezing, what the uncertainty in mapping centimeters to years, and a thousand questions like that which I can't even know that I should ask. At the very minimum, I should look through the data through a statistical model including uncertainties.
Since I don't have a year to study the science of ice core data fulltime, I need to rely on papers written up and conclusions made by those who know the data better. Ideally both papers written by climate change supporters and sceptics. Ideally peer-reviewed, but if there's a conspiracy going on I can always read rejected papers...
But just downloading and looking and drawing consequences from that myself -- or worse, look at some simplified plot made by some conspiracy theorist and draw conclusions from that -- if I do that I might as well make myself a nice tin-foil-hat and become a member of flat earth society.
I've almost completed a PhD in astrophysics right now, and I know that if someone were to just download the images taken of the cosmic microwave background and conclude anything at all from them, without knowing the full details of the assumed physical models, instrumental effects, and the data analysis pipeline, the results would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean our results are ludicrous though, because we've spent years understanding the data.
All data needs to be deeply understood before drawing any conclusions. I certainly don't understand ice core data, and since you're not giving me any papers I bet you don't understand ice core data either. You are simply repeating arguments made by others who, hopefully do -- hence I asked for references. Your assurances and explanations here are worthless; that doesn't mean one shouldn't discuss science in social media, but when one does, it can only be as summaries of what people who do know the data well are saying (but if you got it from the documentary I guess I can pick up the trail from there).
Scientists screw it up all the time. That I can support. But the issue just being "too simple" for scientists to understand, and everyone just being stupid, and the matter really being very simple -- then I know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. If you end up being right in the end, and global warming is wrong, then it is not because you are brilliant, it is because you lucked out in seeing the right documentary first.
Your skepticism about the ice core data is correct. But, it was the ice core data that was nearly all the data in Al Gore's movie that did a lot to get the global warming scare going. So, in a sense, just take that data, see the 800 year lag, and declare Gore's argument junk.
I don't say that the alarmists are idiots -- I'd say that they are after money. Apparently Al Gore made a lot. So did Elon Musk (supposedly ballpark $5 billion in subsidies). And many others. The movie I linked to has one of the most credible guys, Lindzen, explaining how the money works. Al Gore started the money flow, and Maggie Thatcher had a role, too.
I'm not going to check the ice core data for the points you mentioned. Presumably some people have done that. So, then, sure, maybe the original papers from the Russians at their Vostok station, etc. would be a place to look.
If you do go look and do then take the ice core data at face value, and the 800 year lag, then return to my argument in my little post and drive a stake through the heart of the global warming alarmists.
It's not about science. Instead it's about money and power. Without the issues of money and power, there would be no IPCC, Paris Accord, Kyoto whatever, subsidies for "renewable" energy, much of anything about solar cells, wind turbines, or carbon sequestration, and the whole subject would have less attention than worms 7 miles down in the Pacific.
Since the real issues are money and power, no way am I going to check in detail the ice core data for questions at the level of detail you mentioned. The alarmists, seeking money and power, have suckered a lot of people, and for me to spend time checking all the details of the ice core data would be my getting suckered because it's about money and power, not science. In particular, the contention you see is due to money and power, not doubts about the data. That's all just part of the real world outside of good science.
I almost lack words at this point. I hope you never come in a decision where you need to judge a scientific inquiry in a way that has consequences for others. At least not about anything more complex than, indeed, whether it is dangerous to jump off a tall building.
At the point where you have to declare that the others are just idiots you KNOW that you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At the very least, you need to spend some time looking into the counter-arguments.
No, I certainly should not just find the ice core data on the internet. To do anything useful with that data I would need to understand how it was gathered, the physical processes that lead to the gases being absorbed, whether gases move within the ice after freezing, what the uncertainty in mapping centimeters to years, and a thousand questions like that which I can't even know that I should ask. At the very minimum, I should look through the data through a statistical model including uncertainties.
Since I don't have a year to study the science of ice core data fulltime, I need to rely on papers written up and conclusions made by those who know the data better. Ideally both papers written by climate change supporters and sceptics. Ideally peer-reviewed, but if there's a conspiracy going on I can always read rejected papers...
But just downloading and looking and drawing consequences from that myself -- or worse, look at some simplified plot made by some conspiracy theorist and draw conclusions from that -- if I do that I might as well make myself a nice tin-foil-hat and become a member of flat earth society.
I've almost completed a PhD in astrophysics right now, and I know that if someone were to just download the images taken of the cosmic microwave background and conclude anything at all from them, without knowing the full details of the assumed physical models, instrumental effects, and the data analysis pipeline, the results would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean our results are ludicrous though, because we've spent years understanding the data.
All data needs to be deeply understood before drawing any conclusions. I certainly don't understand ice core data, and since you're not giving me any papers I bet you don't understand ice core data either. You are simply repeating arguments made by others who, hopefully do -- hence I asked for references. Your assurances and explanations here are worthless; that doesn't mean one shouldn't discuss science in social media, but when one does, it can only be as summaries of what people who do know the data well are saying (but if you got it from the documentary I guess I can pick up the trail from there).
Scientists screw it up all the time. That I can support. But the issue just being "too simple" for scientists to understand, and everyone just being stupid, and the matter really being very simple -- then I know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. If you end up being right in the end, and global warming is wrong, then it is not because you are brilliant, it is because you lucked out in seeing the right documentary first.