71–80 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace "climate change" with "vaccine safety", would you write that same response? Watch me get downvoted for even mentioning the word let alone express a dissenting opinion.
You'll be downvoted for "watch me get downvoted" more than anything
The truth bothers...
Finally, somebody is telling the truth about CO2. Not all is grim about climate. The things are in the middle, as always. Reality is neither black nor white. https://futurecrunch.com/goodnews2023/
The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the rate of change in CO2 is far exceeding the rate of change of any compensatory process, and the replacement of natural plant growth with crops leads to excess methane release that more than compensates for the reduced CO2, so yeah. It’s not surprising, but it’s also insufficient.
[flagged]
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acd5e8
“””What’s more is that while plants absorb carbon, industrial cropland typically produces more carbon emissions than it absorbs over the long term. “””
Finally, somebody is telling the truth about CO2. Not all is grim about climate. The things are in the middle, as always. Reality is neither black nor white. https://futurecrunch.com/goodnews2023/
The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit o…
This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.
The article is a bit all over the place. > So, yes, greening is complicated. It’s not inherently good. Sometimes it’s very bad. Context, it turns out, matters a lot. The tone suggests they're afraid of the change, but the article can't articulate why since the reason for the change and result are both possibly good and bad, but we don't really know yet. The NASA MODIS project is ongoing and produces data that people…
> The article is a bit all over the place. Must an observation have an easily digestible value judgement and tell you how you should think about it, or can it just be allowed to present the facts and list the pros and cons. which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Did you yourself not also include a portion of your comment to respond to article based on its data with your own "it depends" based o…
Hmm, apparently the answer depends!!!
What I believe is "healthier", e.g., for (1) my being informed or (2) click-bait headlines, eyeballs, ad revenue????
But, now, for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
there is a possibility, that is, from some changes from the Internet:
First, the basic ideas of click-bait, etc. go way back in the history of many decades of journalism publishers. They needed a lot of revenue: Printing plants, trucks to deliver literally tons of news print or magazines, ..., radio and TV studios, etc. were expensive. The number of publishers was constrained: Each major city had just two main newspapers, morning and evening. There were a few national magazines. Then, the number of large radio stations, TV stations, were similarly limited. Un, click-bait that works in one major city stands to work everywhere which creates the constraints on the number of national click-bait publishers.
> easily digestible value judgment and tell you how you should think
Well put. For the big publishers, that is what dominated.
For a good review and explanation going way back, see the ~1941 movie Meet John Doe.
Second, now the decades, 100+ years, of such journalism is also being attempted on the Web sites of the Internet -- thus, your well put objection.
BUT ...!!!! For an audience and a publisher for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
they no longer need be so expensive. A single tower case computer can send, what, 100+ Web pages a second?
Sooo, now the mass audience can have subsets.
Some simple arithmetic:
Assume 1 ad per Web page sent, revenue of $1 per 1000 ads displayed, sending a 24 x 7 average of 50 Web pages a second. Assume pre-tax earnings are 50% of revenue.
Then annual earnings would be
50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 572,400
dollars.
Assume the business is worth 100 times annual earnings, and get
100 * 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 57,240,000
dollars.
A possibility for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
is the economy: A lot of data is available. Could present it in largely some simple X-Y graphs can do routinely with, say, Excel in Microsoft's Office.
Another possibility: For COVID, start with the crucial data in the report of the Phase III trials in
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
COVID and medicine more generally are good subjects for
> the facts and list the pros and cons.
Follow, say, common high school standards for term papers, e.g., careful references, hopefully to credible primary sources.
Get an audience that values credibility.
Then get a brand, a growing audience, and a successful business.
Hmm, yup, I have a related startup -- Web site code running as intended. Should go live this year.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit o…
[flagged]
Z prefers reading white on black.
M prefers the middle, reading grey on grey.
No, there's no always a middle. In any case, you are not pointing at a middle. You are just focusing on a(n additional) fact in an ocean of known facts. A fact that you seem to think changes the perspective one should have on the topic.
I didn't downvote, but I suspect you are downvoted because this is wrong and it doesn't help. We certainly don't need people to tame and water things down in this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit o…
>But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a k…
> This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make
Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic.
It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because...
> A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
... has not happened. The wealthy civilization needs to want it and make it a priority now.
Anyway, I'm replying to someone who speaks about potentially negative effects of climate change. Wake up! It's not "potentially" anymore, it's already started!
"Technology will save us" is a tired trope at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article is a bit all over the place. Must an observation have an easily digestible value judgement and tell you how you should think about it, or can it just be allowed to present the facts and list the pros and cons. which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Did you yourself not also include a portion of your comment to respond to article based on its data with your own "it depends" based o…
> which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Hmm, apparently the answer depends !!! What I believe is "healthier", e.g., for (1) my being informed or (2) click-bait headlines, eyeballs, ad revenue???? But, now, for > the facts and list the pros and cons. there is a possibility, that is, from some changes from the Internet: First, the basic ideas of click-bait, etc. go way back in the history of man…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole environmental movement made a mistake framing things as a moralistic struggle to “save the Earth.” Like George Carlin famously said on this subject: “the Earth will be fine. We’re fucked. The Earth has been far warmer with higher CO2 concentrations in its past and it was fine, but there were no humans then. It’s also been in an ice age fairly recently, but there was little civilization as far as we know and…
I agree with this. It's very frustrating seeing environmentalists frame the struggle to reduce anthropogenic climate change and pollution and use sustainable renewable resources and so on as some kind of moralistic obligation to some sort of abstract concept of nature, which is due deference and submission as something morally "greater" than ourselves that demands service, and as some kind of struggle to project very…
Some people are definitely weird about it. Others just enjoy fish, or snow, or living without paying for AC. I'd argue it's pretty illogical to equate these, and outright dishonest to dismiss the latter due to the former.
The statements: "we're hurting Mother Earth" and "hot rocks are still rocks" are both true and both useless, and dogmatic adherence to either can be shortsighted.