4 ms·

Some of the people you go out of your way to slander as both trump supporters and climate change deniers exist as they do because of people like you, who immedi

by nnfy 9y ago

Some of the people you go out of your way to slander as both trump supporters and climate change deniers exist as they do because of people like you, who immediately take any adverse global trend, blame it on climate change with what amounts to shakey, correlative evidence, and then shame anyone who dares glance over with a skeptical eye. We are dumping all kinds of chemicals into the environment - pesticides, plasticizers, and a host of bio-active compounds which we already know may be directly responsible for the decline of certain individual species[1]. Climate change is a serious threat. But your post is an example of how climate change has become a highly politicized meme. Next thing you know, it becomes a cultural taboo to be skeptical about climate change, and suddenly we're only asking the questions we are allowed to ask, looking for the data we are allowed to look for, sweeping inconsistencies under the rug, and just generally practicing sloppy science. The scientific method necessitates skepticism. I welcome sources to the contrary, but modern western climate science is void of any published criticism, or at least it was when I had access to journals some 5 years ago. Hell, I couldnt find ONE paper discussing ANY benefit on any place on earth from a warmer climate-which is absurd, because northern permafrost could thaw and create arable land, for example. Climate science has been sickened by politics and political correctness. You should be very wary. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

sixothree 9y ago
I hate to admit it but whatever the solution to this problem will be, Trump supporters will almost certainly fight against it.
- libraryatnight 9y ago
  Yes, it has nothing to do with anything based in reason or fact it's just heaps and heaps of angry stupid spewed in an attempt to defend their holy tangerine. edit: words.
smt88 9y ago
Saying that science is biased because it fails to see the benefit of global warming is like saying it's biased because it doesn't discuss the benefit of a worldwide plague. Sure, there'd be benefits: fewer lines at amusement parks, all the food you can eat, etc. But that's so far from a net "good" that only a psychopath or moron would publish a paper with that argument.
- mirimir 9y ago
  It'd be good for other species, however ;) Except for those that we farm, anyway.
- nnfy 9y ago
  How would you even know of there has been so little research on the subject? How can you claim to have an unbiased answer when you only research one side of a topic? I legitimately want to ask you how you can be so sure that our doomsday scenarios are accurate, when we still have a fledgling understanding of a massive chaotic system like climate, and when almost all research has been purposefully negative? If you look hard enough, you'll find anything. That's why skepticism is necessary. You'll at least agree that anything remotely pro climate change is taboo, I hope, and there is no room for taboo in science, in my opinion. Edit: hell, how long have we known about deep ocean currents? Stratification of the subsea into various isoclines and thermoclines? Calthrates? People seem to underestimate how complex climate is, and how much we've yet to discover.
  - smt88 9y ago
    > How would you even know of there has been so little research on the subject? How can you claim to have an unbiased answer when you only research one side of a topic? Like a plague, the millions or billions of human deaths is all the research we need. No benefit is going to counterbalance that. Just to take one example (of many) of deadly things that are already happening that you yourself mentioned: permafrost melting. "More arable land" also means "the release of incredibly dangerous, dormant pathogens like anthrax". Kinda makes the "arable land" moot. https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting
matt4077 9y ago
> I couldnt find ONE paper discussing ANY benefit on any place on earth from a warmer climate-which is absurd, because northern permafrost could thaw and create arable land, for example. Bullshit. Here's what I found within two minutes, from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, i. e. the currently valid "bible" of climate change: Studies since the AR4 have confirmed that high-latitude locations will, in general, become more suitable for crops (Iqbal et al., 2009). Trnka et al. (2011), for example, examined projections of eleven agro-climatic indices across Europe, and found that declines in frost occurrence will lead to longer growing seasons[..] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Ch... Start of Section 7.3.4. on page 504.
libraryatnight 9y ago
So you're angry that perhaps some of the people that are trying to affect change for a cleaner planet are doing so under misinformation? You seem to be the one politicizing things. I think most of us just want to support ideas, technology, and people that make sense. Cleaner more sustainable energy just makes sense regardless of what you think about bugs and weather.

by nnfy 9y ago

sixothree 9y ago

I hate to admit it but whatever the solution to this problem will be, Trump supporters will almost certainly fight against it.

libraryatnight 9y ago
Yes, it has nothing to do with anything based in reason or fact it's just heaps and heaps of angry stupid spewed in an attempt to defend their holy tangerine. edit: words.

smt88 9y ago

Saying that science is biased because it fails to see the benefit of global warming is like saying it's biased because it doesn't discuss the benefit of a worldwide plague. Sure, there'd be benefits: fewer lines at amusement parks, all the food you can eat, etc. But that's so far from a net "good" that only a psychopath or moron would publish a paper with that argument.

mirimir 9y ago
It'd be good for other species, however ;) Except for those that we farm, anyway.
nnfy 9y ago
How would you even know of there has been so little research on the subject? How can you claim to have an unbiased answer when you only research one side of a topic? I legitimately want to ask you how you can be so sure that our doomsday scenarios are accurate, when we still have a fledgling understanding of a massive chaotic system like climate, and when almost all research has been purposefully negative? If you look hard enough, you'll find anything. That's why skepticism is necessary. You'll at least agree that anything remotely pro climate change is taboo, I hope, and there is no room for taboo in science, in my opinion. Edit: hell, how long have we known about deep ocean currents? Stratification of the subsea into various isoclines and thermoclines? Calthrates? People seem to underestimate how complex climate is, and how much we've yet to discover.
- smt88 9y ago
  > How would you even know of there has been so little research on the subject? How can you claim to have an unbiased answer when you only research one side of a topic? Like a plague, the millions or billions of human deaths is all the research we need. No benefit is going to counterbalance that. Just to take one example (of many) of deadly things that are already happening that you yourself mentioned: permafrost melting. "More arable land" also means "the release of incredibly dangerous, dormant pathogens like anthrax". Kinda makes the "arable land" moot. https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting

matt4077 9y ago

> I couldnt find ONE paper discussing ANY benefit on any place on earth from a warmer climate-which is absurd, because northern permafrost could thaw and create arable land, for example. Bullshit. Here's what I found within two minutes, from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, i. e. the currently valid "bible" of climate change: Studies since the AR4 have confirmed that high-latitude locations will, in general, become more suitable for crops (Iqbal et al., 2009). Trnka et al. (2011), for example, examined projections of eleven agro-climatic indices across Europe, and found that declines in frost occurrence will lead to longer growing seasons[..] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Ch... Start of Section 7.3.4. on page 504.

libraryatnight 9y ago

So you're angry that perhaps some of the people that are trying to affect change for a cleaner planet are doing so under misinformation? You seem to be the one politicizing things. I think most of us just want to support ideas, technology, and people that make sense. Cleaner more sustainable energy just makes sense regardless of what you think about bugs and weather.