3 ms·

How to answer climate change denial

3 points by animeshk 9y ago

vixen99 9y ago
It's claimed there are two groups of 'denialists': to which group does Professor Richard Lindzen belong? 'Lobbyist' or 'Ignorant'? Richard Lindzen: 'Emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor, beginning in 1983. Prior to that he was the Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University'. "The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-letter-objecting-to-his-petition-to-trump-to-withdraw-from-the-unfcc/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-t...
- animeshk 9y ago
  Interesting. I don't know what's with Prof. Lindzen, but I remember reading the letter he sent to the President regarding withdrawal from UN climate convention, which was opposed by 22 Professors and assistant professors via another letter. http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-fac... If we are just talking about numbers, there are far more scientists backing the claim with valid research data than those who don't. Lobbyists like Shell even pay many researchers to come out and talk crap. Also, there no harm in taking the direction for clean energy alternatives and making policies that support such initiatives. In spite of the data, high carbon emission will certainly not help the future generations.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
I think a counterpoint that often gets overlooked is that, since denialists express doubt in current predictions, can we afford to take that risk? Can we afford to keep increasing CO2 levels, until we know it won't lead to unwanted and/or irreversible changes? I.e. prove that more CO2 is safe, not that it's dangerous, before emitting more.
- animeshk 9y ago
  That's the most scary thing.. A fair amount of hope could come from scientists running for the office rather than hoping for someone sane to take power..

3 points by animeshk 9y ago

It's claimed there are two groups of 'denialists': to which group does Professor Richard Lindzen belong? 'Lobbyist' or 'Ignorant'? Richard Lindzen: 'Emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor, beginning in 1983. Prior to that he was the Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University'. "The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-letter-objecting-to-his-petition-to-trump-to-withdraw-from-the-unfcc/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-t...

animeshk 9y ago
Interesting. I don't know what's with Prof. Lindzen, but I remember reading the letter he sent to the President regarding withdrawal from UN climate convention, which was opposed by 22 Professors and assistant professors via another letter. http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-fac... If we are just talking about numbers, there are far more scientists backing the claim with valid research data than those who don't. Lobbyists like Shell even pay many researchers to come out and talk crap. Also, there no harm in taking the direction for clean energy alternatives and making policies that support such initiatives. In spite of the data, high carbon emission will certainly not help the future generations.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

I think a counterpoint that often gets overlooked is that, since denialists express doubt in current predictions, can we afford to take that risk? Can we afford to keep increasing CO2 levels, until we know it won't lead to unwanted and/or irreversible changes? I.e. prove that more CO2 is safe, not that it's dangerous, before emitting more.

animeshk 9y ago
That's the most scary thing.. A fair amount of hope could come from scientists running for the office rather than hoping for someone sane to take power..