Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean rejecting science and 50 years of research in an area where there’s a rare 99% consensus among scientists (check: Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters), just because some guys on social media said so.
The best kind of propaganda is when people believe they're "thinking on their own" while repeating some convenient lie to keep the grift going. If you think that doesn't apply to you, then it's working as designed.
At least I am falling to the best kind of propaganda. While the other side, who does not apparently even believe they're "thinking on their own", is falling to a much poorer one...
>Have you read the IPCC report? Do you have any kind of physics education and experience in real world thermodynamics at scale?
No and no, but I find it alarming when even trivial questions regarding reliability of methods used to estimate past temperatures are met with ridicule and appeal to authority...
And you are not doing much better. Instead of being curious and asking me what I actually think, or why I think it, you start throwing me research. You also assume that everyone who claims "to think" are coming from some propaganda resource. It is actually the shallow claims from the "convinced" that trigger my skepticism.
It's not about the past temperatures though, is it?
It's about the increasing insulation factor of the atmosphere (unquestionably caused by human fossil fuel extraction) that is trapping more heat.
> you start throwing me research.
That backs that point about insulation.
> Instead of being curious and asking me what I actually think
You either believe in and understand gravity modelling or you don't, either way you fall, clocks advance at different in different frames, etc. A Foucault pendulum swings in a plane independent of the earth rotation regardless of what any human thinks. The starting point for understanding the claims about climate are rooted in physics.
Hence the need to ask people about their foundational knowledge.
> You also assume that everyone who claims "to think" are coming from some propaganda resource.
No, I tend to believe they haven't thought the basic high school level thermodynamics through.
> It is actually the shallow claims from the "convinced"
I worked through via experiments and a few decades in exploration geophysics myself.
Worth a mention that most of the solid data comes not from "the convinced" or eco warrior hippies, it comes from cold war atomic and anti submarine research, mineral and energy exploration, etc.
Extreme weather changes can be natural. The earth has no contract with humans to keep the weather regulated perfectly.
Actually that is the question we are trying to answer when we look at past trends. Is this manmade (if so we can reverse it)? But the sad thing is that we don't have an techniques that can reliably do it. So we take the best we have and declare with unjustifiable certainty, "facts" about past temperatures..
Actually the reverse is true. I would encourage you to think more and actually read and understand what 99% of science says since 50 years and why so many people come to the same results
