> Hard disagree. Especially when you double down on the Bayesian part. Robustness of data is directly proportional to the strength of a belief in Bayesian inference. Your point here reads as someone looking for confirmation bias. After finding one “commonality” of data, one can exclaim “Eureka” and not have to confront uncomfortable and conflicting data. That’s not good science.
If you care about data, why are temperatures falling in many places on Earth? Why is there increased volcanic activity? What about the Grand Solar Minimum? What about the Geomagnetic excursion? Did you know that Greenland has been gaining ice mass into this summer? Even with temperature stations being placed in the middle of asphalt parking lots & next to AC vents, the temperature data still needs to be manipulated to fit the narrative. Why has measured global temperature fallen despite CO2 rising in the past decade? How has technological change affected CO2, temperature, & astronomical measurement over the past few centuries?
> A strong claim that should probably be backed up with citations
You can do your own research on this. The late Freeman Dyson has some excellent analysis over his skepticism. With the current batch of scientists, it's about having a career. There is no scientific career in being an APGW skeptic, because the market is flooded with grant money going to APGW proponents. Even the incumbent oil companies want to corner the market using regulations. The skeptics are mainly grass-roots. It's David (skeptics) vs Goliath (the Industrial Complex).
> what information would you need to change your mind?
I want to be paid $Trillions to change my mind, like how your system is being fed with $Trillions to perpetuate your lies. I want all of the money returned to & compensation to the tax-payers, consumers, & people adversely affected by policies, taxes, & loss of freedom. I want action to protect the public against naturally occurring climate change, which includes the Grand Solar Minimum, Geomagnetic Excursion, increased Solar & Cosmic ionic bombardments, increased volcanic activity, supply chain disruptions. I want decreased regulation & decreased taxation. I want regional & redundant food production grown by the people, free from binding laws & regulations, some of which prevent fruit trees & crops from being grown. I want the environmental movement to focus on clean water, clean air, regenerative practices, holding industry accountable for pollution, not this CO2 canard which only funnels wealth to the powerful, while serving polluting & monopolistic industrial interests. I want poverty to be a thing of the past. There is no reason for scarcity among so many people in the world, other than hoarding & systems of impoverishment by the few so-called elites.
> There's a certain amount of skepticism that is healthy but there is also a tipping point where one becomes so skeptical of everything that it just becomes more convenient to wear a tin-foil hat because one can never be 100% certain. To circle back, I think it's wise to go with the preponderance of data when in doubt and try as hard as we can to resist irrational bias.
False & misleading data should be discarded from the conversation. Just because one worldview has captured some institutions, does not mean that the worldview is correct. It's easy to cherry-pick & not be transparent with data-collection when there's group-think backed by money. The IPCC has been wrong with their predictions. The global average temperature is cyclical & has already crested. How many times has snow being a "thing of the past" been proclaimed? There's been many doomsday prognostications by APGW proponents over the decades which never come to pass. At what point do we say "enough, leave us alone, no you can't have my money, fuck off"?
> Yes, every human view is biased to a certain extent. That's part of being human. Which is more to the point that it's better to err on the side of the data. Even if it flies in the face of what you want the conclusion to be. I'd encourage anyone to think outside the confines of one's worldview, but that maverick-i-ness doesn't absolve one from needing data to back it up.
The data needs to be interpreted. The raw data should be available. The data needs to be put in context. There good reason why grass-roots skepticism has been growing despite $Billions being poured into APGW propaganda & overwhelming institutional lock-step agendas. Your favorite institutions can flood the public with false, manipulated, & inconsistent data and some people will be convinced. However, not everybody will be convinced, especially those who are adversely affected by the increased regulations. If there was no reason to be skeptical as you seem to imply, there would not be so many people being skeptical.
> This was read as a pragmatic argument and I don't find pragmatism to lack credibility. I’m not sure your point here; is your stance that taxes are immoral or illegal?
How is stealing money from the public to benefit the powerful for duplicitous reasons "pragmatic"? Are the powerful ever held accountable for their actions or will they continue to jet-set, yacht, & own/utilize multiple mansions around the world in plain view?
> Bringing up a question is fine
Bringing up a question is never fine with you people because you have an agenda to take money from the public to enrich yourselves. I get it, it's the law of the jungle or something like that. Take from others to enrich yourself. Just don't expect us to comply with your edicts, no matter how much false & inconsistent data you throw our way.