2 ms·
For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified,
by mturmon 8y ago
For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence.
And also, the whole discussion branch nearby on the greening effect of small increases in CO2 is really missing the point, and is completely ungrounded in any science. There is a whole literature out there on how significant this effect is relative to other effects of rising CO2! (Spoiler: it is not that significant.)
- taneq 8y ago> For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence. So you disagree with the grandparent post's statement that "But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message."? There are plenty of large, prominent climate activist groups making prominent public statements. I've never heard a single one of them discuss this aspect. (Contrast with scientific papers, many of which do mention it and which are not what we were talking about).
- mturmon 8y agoThe place to start would be: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/ The key phrase you're looking for is: CO2 fertilization.