[Hersbird]

I posted this over at a long beaten horse topic and it got moved so as long as I'm in the lounge let me post it in the correct thread.

Here's what I have learned from the application of science. Oh I had the classroom theory, year, and years, and years at the highest levels possible at the finest institutions. Training with a failure rate higher than that experienced by Navy Seals, just all academic not physical. So I learned how things are supposed to be, then for 8 years I applied it. often 80+ hours a week, at least 48 weeks a year. Titrations, spectrophotometers, centrifuges, ph meters, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, etc. The joke I had heard became reality. When you as field chemist are asked what something is, the reply is, "What do you want it to be?" Keep in mind this is in the realm of hard science. We know exactly what is happening, nothing is speculation, nothing is unknown in a process, we aren't filling in any blanks. We can push those precise analysis to a huge range of results based on tiny accuracy of analysis errors at each step. Now if the outcome didn't have a bias then most would wash out and overall you would have a pretty honest result. But when you have done it a thousand times you soon find that those paying the checks actually are looking for specific results. So you give them what they expect.

Now I look at man's effect on the climate and the results both sides get, knowing what it is like in the real world. I also know from my almost 50 years of riding this planet how amazing it all seems to be. It's not some fragile piece of glass waiting to be shattered by a small input from man. Animals aren't fragile, people aren't fragile, plants aren't fragile, the rocks, the core, the atmosphere, none of it, is weak.

one place where I see the bias pushing results, is in the burying of solutions that could help remove C02, if it does need removed, if those solutions don't also involve a political push that the convenient truth of favors one political religion. So say large CO2 scrubbers. I have read detailed reports that show how that could be done on a large scale at under $100 per ton. Worst case $1000 per ton with current technology. I always hear how batteries will get better and less expensive with time an application, so wouldn't that be true here as well? Maybe $50/ton is possible one day. But even at $1000/ton it still would be less expensive that the Green New Deal. What it doesn't do is control people, scare them into voting a certain way, live a way good for the state, and all the other things where the solution seems to be the same solution communism was supposed to fix.

This doesn't even touch on all the unknowns, that you have to plug into models. Again pushing the results where you want the outcome to fall. What do clouds do? We don't know, so we guess. Imagine what the guess is from those that want this to be a huge problem? That's right more clouds, and clouds don't cool they heat even more. We don't know that there will be more clouds, or that clouds will heat even more, but we will take that error of analysis and carry it forward to the next guess we make. This time about say the ocean's carbon sink, and on and on. To get the small warming that will somehow make part of the Earth uninhabitable, you have to keep multiplying those guesses by themselves because if you took an more average approach we would end up with results that we have actually experienced the last 20 years, rather than the results that scare people into submitting to their religion.