121–130 of 150 posts
What if rather than doom we get global tropical paradise
About 80 percent of bugs have died in Peurto Rico rain forest attributed to global warming. We are in the 6th mass extinction. It won't be a tropical paradise without bugs, birds, animals, and the ability to grow food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its called modeling not science and not science modeling in any shape or form even closely resembling ex physics. We dont know its going to be bad, we dont know if its us or natural variation and we dont have a single scientifically demonstrated conclusion of climate change we dont know how to deal with. Modelling is NOT science, its more akin to scenarioplanning which is why the results are all over the map. If it w…
Statistics is a part of science. It's perfectly valid to use scientific methods to arrive at: this is the current trend, this increase started at year X, given all we know right now, there's a tiny chance that this increase is not caused by this specific change. From there we can extrapolate future changes with some likelihood brackets. Then feel free to discuss the brackets, the methodology, etc. but you can't reall…
Science is a process with some disciplines allowing us to be very precise and others not so much.
Climate science is a very imprecise type of science with so much uncertainty that all we can do is offer ranges of output based on ranges of initial conditions, we dont even know which conditions are correct and we dont know what we are missing. Even the data we put into the models are highly debatable, and then we havent even added the fact that 125 years is not some objective way to measure naural vs human made influence.
But sure as usual just downvote all you want, that doesent make computer models or statistics any more science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its called modeling not science and not science modeling in any shape or form even closely resembling ex physics. We dont know its going to be bad, we dont know if its us or natural variation and we dont have a single scientifically demonstrated conclusion of climate change we dont know how to deal with. Modelling is NOT science, its more akin to scenarioplanning which is why the results are all over the map. If it w…
Since when does physics not use models?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you know there wasnt something wetter 150 years ago how?
There probably was! It would be the acme of foolishness to surmise that we've never had a wetter year in the history of our planet. But we compare to things that we know about, instead of guessing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 80 percent of bugs have died in Peurto Rico rain forest attributed to global warming. We are in the 6th mass extinction. It won't be a tropical paradise without bugs, birds, animals, and the ability to grow food.
Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about vague shifting definitions of "normal." We're talking about "the wettest 12 months ever recorded," in the 125 years we have data for.
125 years is still a very small amount of time to assess climate, and the quality of the data 125 years ago isn’t very good. Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.
On the other hand, it is beyond doubt that global warming is happening and getting worse. Ergo, we have to seriously cut down our CO2 emission. In the year 2019, anybody who's asking for more data on that is just willfully stalling discussion.
Stop getting hung up on "radical remaking of society," because that's going to happen anyway. Whether we like it or not, society is going to be radically remade when we lose Miami and New Orleans to the sea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which ways is it inaccurate?
You can be accurate and still be uncharitable. Educate, don’t chastise or mock. And never make it personal.
The most charitable interpretation I have is that the original poster is a paid shill -- in other words, they're bright enough to realize what they're saying is idiotic, but they're just doing a job to put food on the table. It'd take some evidence to sway me to that view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if new tropical paradises means the current tropical paradises become uninhabitable, creating more forced migrations that make the syrian refugee crisis look like a quiet day on the canadian border, and the lands that become your "tropical paradise" actually are the grain belts of the world, which can no longer grow all the food a continuously expanding global population demands? Look at all the flooding in the…
Wheat prices don’t seem to be particular affected; https://www.macrotrends.net/2534/wheat-prices-historical-cha...
https://www.agweb.com/article/crunch-time-31-million-corn-ac...
Gold & Silver have also been kept artificially low & there is incoming indictments of market rigging. I add this as an example of how financialization distorts the pricing information flow.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/merrill-lynch-fined-by-doj...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be accurate and still be uncharitable. Educate, don’t chastise or mock. And never make it personal.
Normally, charity in an interpretation means that there's a way that it could be taken where it makes sense. I don't think that's the case for this comment. The most charitable interpretation I have is that the original poster is a paid shill -- in other words, they're bright enough to realize what they're saying is idiotic, but they're just doing a job to put food on the table. It'd take some evidence to sway me to…
I don't agree with their comment. But after looking at their comment history, I see no evidence for them being "a paid shill". Contrarian and outspoken, sure. But not a shill.