5 ms·

I mean, its definitely humans. No one legitimate is disputing that.

root_axis 7y ago
"legitimate" doesn't have much meaning in today's policy circles. Conservatives control the government, if we want any progress on this front it's probably a good idea to avoid agitating them with attacks on their legitimacy. edit: I don't mind the downvotes, but I'm curious what is so objectionable about what I've written.
fastball 7y ago
So plants don't go extinct without human intervention?
- esailija 7y ago
  They do but 500 times slower.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- RosanaAnaDana 7y ago
  Sure. But thats a false equivalency and you know it. When pretend that because species do go extinct in nature, and humans are currently causing extinction, that the two are even remotely close to the same thing is a clear attempt at disinformation. There have been other times when plants have gone extinct at the current rate. They usually involved city+ size asteroids.
- inscionent 7y ago
  Plants, animals, humans are just a disaster for biodiversity. > Most extinctions have occurred in the last 114 years (that is, since 1900; Table 1). > modern extinction rates for vertebrates varied from 8 to 100 times higher than the background rate > for example, that under the 2 E/MSY background rate, 9 vertebrate extinctions would have been expected since 1900; however, under the conservative rate, 468 more vertebrates have gone extinct than would have if the background rate had persisted across all vertebrates under that period. Specifically, these 468 species include 69 mammal species, 80 bird species, 24 reptiles, 146 amphibians, and 158 fish. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253?utm_source=pulsenews&utm_medium=referral https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253?utm_sou...
- politician 7y ago
  All that matters is that unlike during the age of the dinosaurs, this time around there are humans that can catalogue dead and dying species for analysis in some potential future. It doesn't matter if the climate is or isn't shifting. It doesn't matter if humans did or didn't cause this. It doesn't matter if the species will go extinct or will evolve to survive in some form.
fromthestart 7y ago
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disag... Depends on how you define legitimate. Also, given today's research "climate", I imagine publishing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to career suicide. Good luck getting funded to prove anything. Particularly considering how politicized climate science has become. Which is unfortunate, because skepticism should be a part of healthy scientific practice - and I think it'd be a stretch to say that climate science isn't subject to the same problems, like p-value abuse and selective publishing, that plague other non-experimental, purely model and statistics based fields. No one is going to publish negative results when they can tweak any of hundreds of model variables to force agreement with data. I think a valid proxy for bias is the relative lack of publications discussing possible benefits of climate change.
- lostcolony 7y ago
  The problem is that skepticism, to lay people, has been equated to "it's not true! Ergo, we don't need to do anything". Meaning that it -should- be career suicide. Because the evidence in favor is so large, that it's incredibly unethical to give climate change deniers more credibility
- iak8god 7y ago
  > I imagine publishing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to career suicide. Opinions are not publishable. It is so damaging to propagate the idea that some guys over there have one opinion, and then some other guys have a different opinion, and there's really no way to tell which is correct, and that this is what science is about. Discussions about climate science in the public sphere are politicized, but only because of massive disinformation campaigns by those who stand to profit less if reasonable countermeasures were implemented. > I think a valid proxy for bias is the relative lack of publications discussing possible benefits of climate change. We might go extinct but if we don't, it might be pleasant to vacation in the arctic? Is this the sort of scientific claim you have in mind?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
ArchReaper 7y ago
Sure, but stupid people don't understand the concept of scientific legitimacy. That's a large part of the problem with modern politics.

"legitimate" doesn't have much meaning in today's policy circles. Conservatives control the government, if we want any progress on this front it's probably a good idea to avoid agitating them with attacks on their legitimacy. edit: I don't mind the downvotes, but I'm curious what is so objectionable about what I've written.

fastball 7y ago

So plants don't go extinct without human intervention?

esailija 7y ago
They do but 500 times slower.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
RosanaAnaDana 7y ago
Sure. But thats a false equivalency and you know it. When pretend that because species do go extinct in nature, and humans are currently causing extinction, that the two are even remotely close to the same thing is a clear attempt at disinformation. There have been other times when plants have gone extinct at the current rate. They usually involved city+ size asteroids.
inscionent 7y ago
Plants, animals, humans are just a disaster for biodiversity. > Most extinctions have occurred in the last 114 years (that is, since 1900; Table 1). > modern extinction rates for vertebrates varied from 8 to 100 times higher than the background rate > for example, that under the 2 E/MSY background rate, 9 vertebrate extinctions would have been expected since 1900; however, under the conservative rate, 468 more vertebrates have gone extinct than would have if the background rate had persisted across all vertebrates under that period. Specifically, these 468 species include 69 mammal species, 80 bird species, 24 reptiles, 146 amphibians, and 158 fish. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253?utm_source=pulsenews&utm_medium=referral https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253?utm_sou...
politician 7y ago
All that matters is that unlike during the age of the dinosaurs, this time around there are humans that can catalogue dead and dying species for analysis in some potential future. It doesn't matter if the climate is or isn't shifting. It doesn't matter if humans did or didn't cause this. It doesn't matter if the species will go extinct or will evolve to survive in some form.

fromthestart 7y ago

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disag... Depends on how you define legitimate. Also, given today's research "climate", I imagine publishing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to career suicide. Good luck getting funded to prove anything. Particularly considering how politicized climate science has become. Which is unfortunate, because skepticism should be a part of healthy scientific practice - and I think it'd be a stretch to say that climate science isn't subject to the same problems, like p-value abuse and selective publishing, that plague other non-experimental, purely model and statistics based fields. No one is going to publish negative results when they can tweak any of hundreds of model variables to force agreement with data. I think a valid proxy for bias is the relative lack of publications discussing possible benefits of climate change.

lostcolony 7y ago
The problem is that skepticism, to lay people, has been equated to "it's not true! Ergo, we don't need to do anything". Meaning that it -should- be career suicide. Because the evidence in favor is so large, that it's incredibly unethical to give climate change deniers more credibility
iak8god 7y ago
> I imagine publishing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to career suicide. Opinions are not publishable. It is so damaging to propagate the idea that some guys over there have one opinion, and then some other guys have a different opinion, and there's really no way to tell which is correct, and that this is what science is about. Discussions about climate science in the public sphere are politicized, but only because of massive disinformation campaigns by those who stand to profit less if reasonable countermeasures were implemented. > I think a valid proxy for bias is the relative lack of publications discussing possible benefits of climate change. We might go extinct but if we don't, it might be pleasant to vacation in the arctic? Is this the sort of scientific claim you have in mind?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago

ArchReaper 7y ago

Sure, but stupid people don't understand the concept of scientific legitimacy. That's a large part of the problem with modern politics.