7 ms·

>I'm sorry you had to go through these trials. How very heroic of you to set the record straight for all these dummies. You surely must have some relevant educa

by ra1n85 7y ago

>I'm sorry you had to go through these trials. How very heroic of you to set the record straight for all these dummies. You surely must have some relevant education and peer group, right? I think you're completely missing the point. The bombast ("the oceans are running out of oxygen","we only have 12 years left") is counter productive. We need to identify actionable problems and address them now. Alarming everyone through apocalyptic headlines will only fatigue and confuse.

endorphone 7y ago
Science isn't there to make you feel good, motiviated, etc. They're just pointing out what's happening to the best of their abilities to measure and analyze. Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution.
- ra1n85 7y ago
  >Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution. It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy. If accuracy is something you see as an optional component of reporting, then I'm not going to be able to get on your wavelength.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    "It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy" So....what's inaccurate about the reporting? You've strangely yet to mention any, though you did add your own invented "we only have 12 years left" bit for whatever reason (neither the article or report say anything of the sort). But yes, we aren't going to get on the same wavelength, clearly. Your original post claimed that I "missed the point", when I clearly replied to someone's specific points, then you injected yet another narrative. This is a tactic as old as time for baseless rhetoric -- just constantly spin around the topic, adding just enough noise that you hope it disrupts the conversation.
  - moultano 7y ago
    If you have complaints about the article's accuracy, spell them out instead of knee-jerking from the headline.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      3-4% in 2100 if things continue is NOT "the ocean running out of oxygen"
      - endorphone 7y ago
        If that has an extremely adverse effect on ocean life, it most certainly is "running out of oxygen".
        acidburnNSA 7y ago
        Given that we've been in a cold period for the past 10 million years, and that glaciation is rare on earth I'm guessing that's not a huge issue. Warmer temperatures can be survived. It's the rate of change that's going to be the killer. Living things can adapt to change but not suddenly. EDIT: Source for the downvoters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png And discussion from a world-class geologist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares-about-global-warming/#2a75cc8f7a9a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares...
        ThomPete 7y ago
        That doesn't mean it's running out of oxygen.
- edoo 7y ago
  They are almost always wrong with science when it comes to policies that aren't backed by a falsifiable hypothesis. It turns out animal fats are the safest fats and vegetable oils are poison. It turns out you don't have to worry about eating cholesterol. The same for salt. The climate hoax is about to be called out for what it is due to the models exponentially diverging from reality. They claim the ozone hole is shrinking due to CFC bans even though CFCs have only risen since they discovered the natural hole. None of this stuff had any falsifiable hypothesis behind it. The creators of UN agenda 21 were open that they would push control even if the science was fake.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mempko 7y ago
    And yet, here we are, 30 years later, still increasing emissions, still using fossil fuels, still having a weak global coordination. How long do you expect this 'climate hoax plan' to take? Another 10 years? When will the 'globalists' finally take over with their climate hoax plan?
    - edoo 7y ago
      They already took over and are now trying to avoid a credibility crisis. We've been living the 1984 socialist dystopia for decades, but it is really starting to show lately.
      - bayarrhea 7y ago
        For edification, I stopped taking you seriously after this comment because it’s a right wing talking point. Also, Orwell was a democratic socialist and 1984 wasn’t about socialism..
        edoo 7y ago
        Generally you stop taking someone seriously when you can disprove the data pushed, not because of some political cult mentality.

by ra1n85 7y ago

endorphone 7y ago

Science isn't there to make you feel good, motiviated, etc. They're just pointing out what's happening to the best of their abilities to measure and analyze. Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution.

ra1n85 7y ago
>Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution. It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy. If accuracy is something you see as an optional component of reporting, then I'm not going to be able to get on your wavelength.
- endorphone 7y ago
  "It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy" So....what's inaccurate about the reporting? You've strangely yet to mention any, though you did add your own invented "we only have 12 years left" bit for whatever reason (neither the article or report say anything of the sort). But yes, we aren't going to get on the same wavelength, clearly. Your original post claimed that I "missed the point", when I clearly replied to someone's specific points, then you injected yet another narrative. This is a tactic as old as time for baseless rhetoric -- just constantly spin around the topic, adding just enough noise that you hope it disrupts the conversation.
- moultano 7y ago
  If you have complaints about the article's accuracy, spell them out instead of knee-jerking from the headline.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    3-4% in 2100 if things continue is NOT "the ocean running out of oxygen"
    - endorphone 7y ago
      If that has an extremely adverse effect on ocean life, it most certainly is "running out of oxygen".
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        Given that we've been in a cold period for the past 10 million years, and that glaciation is rare on earth I'm guessing that's not a huge issue. Warmer temperatures can be survived. It's the rate of change that's going to be the killer. Living things can adapt to change but not suddenly. EDIT: Source for the downvoters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png And discussion from a world-class geologist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares-about-global-warming/#2a75cc8f7a9a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares...
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        That doesn't mean it's running out of oxygen.
edoo 7y ago
They are almost always wrong with science when it comes to policies that aren't backed by a falsifiable hypothesis. It turns out animal fats are the safest fats and vegetable oils are poison. It turns out you don't have to worry about eating cholesterol. The same for salt. The climate hoax is about to be called out for what it is due to the models exponentially diverging from reality. They claim the ozone hole is shrinking due to CFC bans even though CFCs have only risen since they discovered the natural hole. None of this stuff had any falsifiable hypothesis behind it. The creators of UN agenda 21 were open that they would push control even if the science was fake.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mempko 7y ago
  And yet, here we are, 30 years later, still increasing emissions, still using fossil fuels, still having a weak global coordination. How long do you expect this 'climate hoax plan' to take? Another 10 years? When will the 'globalists' finally take over with their climate hoax plan?
  - edoo 7y ago
    They already took over and are now trying to avoid a credibility crisis. We've been living the 1984 socialist dystopia for decades, but it is really starting to show lately.
    - bayarrhea 7y ago
      For edification, I stopped taking you seriously after this comment because it’s a right wing talking point. Also, Orwell was a democratic socialist and 1984 wasn’t about socialism..
      - edoo 7y ago
        Generally you stop taking someone seriously when you can disprove the data pushed, not because of some political cult mentality.