Axios: Guess What Democrats Have Stopped Talking About?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am no expert but when I see politicians and social elites calling for action among the masses to curb their carbon footprint in actions and taxes while exempting themselves; and, so-called experts falsifying their scientific data to support climate change theories, I start thinking this is a front for taxes on America.

No, you start at your denial, and the you employ a backwards think to justify it.

The IPCC conclusions are clear. And they are not based on false data.

 

[LeftofLeft]

No, you start at your denial, and the you employ a backwards think to justify it.

The IPCC conclusions are clear. And they are not based on false data.

Oh well, if an arm of the UN says so, it must be valid. It’s not like they would hold the US to different standards vs. other nations like China and India.

Also, when are the elites who are advocating for Climate Change restrictions going to set an example? When are they going to back off unnecessary jet setting and use a more green approach such as web conferencing? When are they going to climb out of those big black SUVs they are chauffeured around to a more appropriate and aligned green vehicle?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh well, if an arm of the UN says so, it must be valid.

No, the mountains of mutually supportive evidence across nearly every field of science say so.

Look at the length to which you have to go, just to embarrass yourself. Those with evidence and solid theory dont have to embarrass themselves like this.

Just because you are a dishonest person and see dishonesty and corruption as virtues doesnt mean the entire world is like that.

 

[LeftofLeft]

No, the mountains of mutually supportive evidence across nearly every field of science say so.

Look at the length to which you have to go, just to embarrass yourself. Those with evidence and solid theory dont have to embarrass themselves like this.

Just because you are a dishonest person and see dishonesty and corruption as virtues doesnt mean the entire world is like that.

I’m not the one falsifying climate data to push an agenda nor am I the one(s) jetting and riding in big SUVs wagging their finger at US about Climate Change so don’t lecture me about embarrassing myself or being dishonest. The fact that you are in denial that this has occurred in the Climate Change debate says a lot.

 

[HeyNorm]

How does the CO2 per capita compare since the countries have vastly different populations? Let me make this easy for you. If we were as efficient as China the world would have tons less CO2.

View attachment 1144730

And still amount to diddly squat of the total.

Ohhhhhh snap

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does the CO2 per capita compare since the countries have vastly different populations? Let me make this easy for you. If we were as efficient as China the world would have tons less CO2.

View attachment 1144730

FYI: Per Capital CO2 is a CCP Talking Point

 

[Dorian Mode]

As an Independent, I can say there is a lot of merit in developing alternative energy sources and trying to pollute the planet less. The problem I have with the New Green Deal is that it was created to be a money laundering operation for the left. The worst people on the planet to manage anything are the democraps. There is not one thing that they haven't completely fucked up and turned into a corrupt mess.

 

[forkup]

I did plus a good education. Feel free to prove my points wrong

You claimed Democrats now know that climate change is unsupported by science. That’s not only unsubstantiated, it’s a textbook example of begging the question: assuming your conclusion without proving it.

A “good education” should help avoid that kind of reasoning.

Meanwhile, here’s a current report on climate-linked billion-dollar disasters:

U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters: 1980-2024 | Climate Central

The nation’s authoritative database of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters has ceased operations at a time when these devastating events have risen to record levels. We review top takeaways from the archived data (1980-2024).

www.climatecentral.org

If you’re going to argue the science isn’t supported, you’ll need something better than assertion.

 

[forkup]

Green energy cant meet the energy demand of the AI economy. Green energy costs so much the government has to support it with our taxes.

You claimed green energy “can’t meet the energy demands of the AI economy” and that it “costs so much the government has to support it.”

But fossil fuels are also heavily subsidized, including under Trump. By your logic, wouldn't that mean they can’t survive without government support either?

As for what green energy can support: unless you can show future limitations with evidence, not just assumptions, you're begging the question.

And linking subsidies directly to inefficiency is a causation fallacy. Government support often reflects strategic investment, not market failure.

So far, your arguments rely more on assertion than substance. If you've got data, by all means, bring it.

 

[forkup]

That means if we continue to depend on green energy we will create an energy shortage catastrophe and high costs that will wreck the economy.

You’re again begging the question assuming that continued reliance on green energy will cause an “energy catastrophe” without actually proving it. That’s not an argument; it’s just a conclusion looking for support.

And even if there were risks from transitioning too quickly, what about the actual, ongoing catastrophes caused by rising global temperatures? I’ve already pointed out the increasing cost of extreme weather, and that’s just the beginning.

NOAA projects global sea levels could rise up to 2 meters (6.6 feet) by 2100 in high-end scenarios, threatening trillions in coastal infrastructure, displacing populations, and triggering economic shocks far worse than anything you’re speculating about:
Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Ignoring these well-documented threats while handwaving about hypothetical ones isn't a serious argument.

 

[forkup]

As Europe run by rich left wing elites will continue to depend on wind and solar and drive their manufacturing to America

You're begging the question and committing a causation fallacy here.

The claim assumes, without evidence, that relying on wind and solar will necessarily cripple manufacturing and send it to America. But that doesn't follow from current data. In fact, many European nations that have aggressively expanded green energy, like Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have maintained strong economies. Some have even seen increased innovation and job creation because of investment in renewable infrastructure.

Green energy is not anti-industry. It's a different kind of industry, one that drives technological development, energy independence, and long-term cost reductions. The idea that it must harm manufacturing is not only unproven but contradicted by several real-world examples.

If you want to argue economic outcomes, you'll need more than speculation and stereotypes about “left-wing elites.” You'll need actual economic data.

 

[forkup]

I did plus a good education. Feel free to prove my points wrong

I think I’ve responded to all your points, and I’ve also noted that many of them rely on reasoning that’s logically shaky. That doesn’t mean your broader concerns are necessarily invalid, which is why I took the time to engage seriously, but it does weaken how convincing the arguments come across. If there's something I missed or misunderstood, I’m open to continuing the discussion.

 

[Hafar1014]

I think I’ve responded to all your points, and I’ve also noted that many of them rely on reasoning that’s logically shaky. That doesn’t mean your broader concerns are necessarily invalid, which is why I took the time to engage seriously, but it does weaken how convincing the arguments come across. If there's something I missed or misunderstood, I’m open to continuing t

I think I’ve responded to all your points, and I’ve also noted that many of them rely on reasoning that’s logically shaky. That doesn’t mean your broader concerns are necessarily invalid, which is why I took the time to engage seriously, but it does weaken how convincing the arguments come across. If there's something I missed or misunderstood, I’m open to continuing the discussion.

Green energy cant meet the demand of AI and server banks. Nothing you say can change that unless you can prove the sun shines at night and the wind never stops.

 

[Hafar1014]

You're begging the question and committing a causation fallacy here.

The claim assumes, without evidence, that relying on wind and solar will necessarily cripple manufacturing and send it to America. But that doesn't follow from current data. In fact, many European nations that have aggressively expanded green energy, like Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have maintained strong economies. Some have even seen increased innovation and job creation because of investment in renewable infrastructure.

Green energy is not anti-industry. It's a different kind of industry, one that drives technological development, energy independence, and long-term cost reductions. The idea that it must harm manufacturing is not only unproven but contradicted by several real-world examples.

If you want to argue economic outcomes, you'll need more than speculation and stereotypes about “left-wing elites.” You'll need actual economic data.

The pseudo intellectual argument that doesnt understand correlational studies or simple facts. The sun stops at night. Zero energy produced. The wind also stops. Less energy produced. Demand doesnt stop. We have a problem. How do we solve the problem. Well we can buy surplus energy from fossil fuel and nuclear power which doesnt stop. Which creates the question. Why are we using unreliable energy as primary and reliable energy as back up. Duh pretty stupid. But thats the progressive mind that places feelings over facts.

 

[Hafar1014]

You claimed Democrats now know that climate change is unsupported by science. That’s not only unsubstantiated, it’s a textbook example of begging the question: assuming your conclusion without proving it.

A “good education” should help avoid that kind of reasoning.

Meanwhile, here’s a current report on climate-linked billion-dollar disasters:

U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters: 1980-2024 | Climate Central

The nation’s authoritative database of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters has ceased operations at a time when these devastating events have risen to record levels. We review top takeaways from the archived data (1980-2024).

www.climatecentral.org

If you’re going to argue the science isn’t supported, you’ll need something better than assertion.

40% of all science is invalid. Climate change research is all manipulated. Science is the dogma of the left when they say science says its like saying the bible says. Climate is created by the sun nit humans. CO2 is a vital gas not a pollutant. No one cares anymore. Climate change solutions will destroy the economy and they are solutions to a problem that doesnt exist. Just like the ozone hole acid rain, the population bomb, all BS.

 

[citygator]

Does High per capital CO2 melt the ice caps faster than low per capita CO2?

What are we arguing about? The US has a meaningful amount of CO2 pollution created from having lots of people that have a high per capita output of CO2. The only other real meaningful country is China with lots more people and a lower per capita output. Any impact on CO2 needs to include those two places making progress. I am not sure why the right is so bent on word games and lack of nuance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we arguing about? The US has a meaningful amount of CO2 pollution created from having lots of people that have a high per capita output of CO2. The only other real meaningful country is China with lots more people and a lower per capita output. Any impact on CO2 needs to include those two places making progress. I am not sure why the right is so bent on word games and lack of nuance.

I'm not arguing!

The USA has lowered their imaginary "Carbon footprint", China just keeps increasing their output

 

[forkup]

[/QUOTE]
40 percent of science is invalid. Luckily for me then, that climate change consensus among the scientific community is much much higher than that.

If you want to rant against the science of global warming, something that's not really an issue I'm the rest of the world among scientists left or right, then by all means do so.

But please do yourself a favor and don't tout a "decent" education, because your certainly not availing yourself of the benefits of them with what passes for reasoning by you in thos forum.

40% of all science is invalid. Climate change research is all manipulated. Science is the dogma of the left when they say science says its like saying the bible says. Climate is created by the sun nit humans. CO2 is a vital gas not a pollutant. No one cares anymore. Climate change solutions will destroy the economy and they are solutions to a problem that doesnt exist. Just like the ozone hole acid rain, the population bomb, all BS.

“Forty percent of science is invalid”? Fortunately for the rest of us, the scientific consensus on climate change is far, far stronger than that — well over 90% of climate scientists worldwide agree on the basics of anthropogenic warming.

If you want to reject that consensus, fine — but let’s not pretend that’s a neutral or educated position. Outside of some corners of U.S. politics, this isn’t even a debate anymore.

And frankly, calling science ‘dogma’ while asserting things like ‘CO2 isn’t a pollutant’ or ‘no one cares anymore’, that’s not critical thinking. That’s exactly the kind of ideological rigidity you claim to oppose.

So if you’re going to accuse others of blind faith, maybe don’t close your eyes while you do it.

 

[Hafar1014]

You claimed Democrats now know that climate change is unsupported by science. That’s not only unsubstantiated, it’s a textbook example of begging the question: assuming your conclusion without proving it.

A “good education” should help avoid that kind of reasoning.

Meanwhile, here’s a current report on climate-linked billion-dollar disasters:

U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters: 1980-2024 | Climate Central

The nation’s authoritative database of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters has ceased operations at a time when these devastating events have risen to record levels. We review top takeaways from the archived data (1980-2024).

www.climatecentral.org

If you’re going to argue the science isn’t supported, you’ll need something better than assertion.

40 percent of science is invalid. Luckily for me then, that climate change consensus among the scientific community is much much higher than that.

If you want to rant against the science of global warming, something that's not really an issue I'm the rest of the world among scientists left or right, then by all means do so.

But please do yourself a favor and don't tout a "decent" education, because your certainly not availing yourself of the benefits of them with what passes for reasoning by you in thos forum.
“Forty percent of science is invalid”? Fortunately for the rest of us, the scientific consensus on climate change is far, far stronger than that — well over 90% of climate scientists worldwide agree on the basics of anthropogenic warming.

If you want to reject that consensus, fine — but let’s not pretend that’s a neutral or educated position. Outside of some corners of U.S. politics, this isn’t even a debate anymore.

And frankly, calling science ‘dogma’ while asserting things like ‘CO2 isn’t a pollutant’ or ‘no one cares anymore’, that’s not critical thinking. That’s exactly the kind of ideological rigidity you claim to oppose.

So if you’re going to accuse others of blind faith, maybe don’t close your eyes while you do it.
[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a consensus in science. Science can easily be paid to create the results wanted.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary​

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Science once stated smoking was good for you

 

[forkup]

There is no such thing as a consensus in science. Science can easily be paid to create the results wanted.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary​

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Science once stated smoking was good for you

So just to clarify: you're using a single paper, written about a reproducibility crisis in biomedical research, to argue that all of science, including climate science, is unreliable?

That same paper literally cautions against overinterpreting individual studies, especially in fields with small sample sizes, low signal-to-noise ratios, few replications, and high flexibility in statistical modeling, none of which apply meaningfully to climate science.

Climate science, by contrast, is a global, multi-disciplinary field grounded in massive data sets, direct observation (e.g. satellites, ice cores, temperature records), and predictive models validated across decades. The effects being measured are large, persistent, and replicated across independent lines of evidence.

And even then, you’re not citing the study’s methodology or argument, just its title and its abstract, as if that’s sufficient to dismiss an entire body of empirical work.

I appreciate the effort, but this isn't even close to a convincing application of that research. It’s a misreading, applied out of context, to support a sweeping ideological claim the author himself never makes.

If anything, your post illustrates the kind of "bias-driven interpretation" Ioannidis was warning against. So, no I'm sorry, but this doesn't work on me. I read the links provided, and I understood was what said in this one.


Also, here is a talk by Ioannidis himself (around 25:00 minutes) where he explains how many significant results can indicate flawed data. He also shows that geosciences, which includes climate science, have some of the lowest rates of such problematic findings. So, your claim about the entire field being unreliable is contradicted by the very data the author presents.