4 ms·
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 t
by 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