4 ms·

Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you a

Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis. Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding.

alea_iacta_est 5y ago
> The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. The self righteous people like you are way more dangerous in my humble opinion...
- tjr225 5y ago
  Unfortunately for you we don't have time to care about your feelings. I've got a daughter who is going to have to live in this mess.
sintaxi 5y ago
The IPCC doesn't produce scientific research as you are implying. The purpose of the IPCC is to justify the basis of "global climate action" so their opinion has no relevancy when it comes to debating the scientific upsides and downsides of rising CO2. What few people seem to realize is that during the last ice age CO2 levels @180ppm was so low life on earth for mankind nearly collapsed - and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past - so there is significant reason to be at ease with a rising CO2 considering how close to extinction level CO2 was a short while ago.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past The last time that CO2 levels were around 8000ppm was also the time when the solar flux was several percent lower. So this argument doesn't really work the way you thought it worked.
tryonenow 5y ago
>Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? As a matter of fact I have, though not in a few years. The papers and the commentary are both far less certain in their assertions than you would ever guess judging by the common fervor against "denialists". >Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding. No, it's based on studies of modern [0] and prehistoric plants. The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. >The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis. The "rhetoric" I'm spewing is scientifically rational skepticism. The current science as practiced is one sided, primarily because of reactions like yours, which equate differing opinions with heresy. Climate science is far from settled and so called denialism is nowhere near the same level as flat earth/chemtrails/antivax skepticism to which it is dismissively compared. Also you haven't made a single argument against my point that we are looking at a tiny fraction of a periodic signal and presuming a trend - and that's because there fundamentally is no argument against it. 0. https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-...
- antod 5y ago
  > No, it's based on studies of modern [0] and prehistoric plants. The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. So back then they were "rapidly" sequestering it out of the atmosphere rather than doing their darndest to put it back in the air? Do we also need to resurrect all those prehistoric plants to help deal with it instead of burning and clearing the tropical rainforests we currently have? If the Carboniferous is how nature deals with too much CO2 over millions of years, we certainly aren't letting it take the same approach this time.
- titzer 5y ago
  > The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. This is not what I read here[1]. > Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell during the Carboniferous Period from roughly 8 times the current level in the beginning, to a level similar to today's at the end.[14] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
nerdponx 5y ago
Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding. Somewhat off-topic, but this is exactly the kind of reasoning I see promulgated by a lot of conspiracy theorists, and more broadly by people who refuse to let go of outdated policies and ideas about the world. There is a certain arrogance inherent in the belief that you can understand anything just by thinking about it.
- titzer 5y ago
  > by a lot of conspiracy theorists, And climate denialists, who generally fall back on their weak intuitions. It'd be overgenerous to compare them to Newtonian physicists failing to grasp Relativity--the former was at least a respectable, experimentally verifiable theory that one could get to with basic calculus and the straight lines our minds draw for us, and not an inaccessible mathematical theory requiring graduate study to grasp that warps your mind just like it warps space time. A lot of people are like Flat Earthers who won't look through a pair of binoculars to watch a ship disappear over the horizon. It's both right in front of their face and yet beyond their reach; it needs just a smidgen of education, and they'd see it for themselves. It is this way with climate change denialists. But things are looking up! Monarchs are basically extinct now, the Arctic will be ice-free in summer sooner than expected, and floods in Florida are picking up! Some people are gonna get an education soon!
  - tryonenow 5y ago
    >the former was at least a respectable, experimentally verifiable theory One of the major problems with climate science is that it is fundamentally not experimentally verifiable. That almost places it in the category of soft science. Laymen tend to underestimate the uncertainty of the so called consensus. It is a fundamental property of the field of Climate Science. It will not be comfortable in certainty to something like Newtonian Physics until we have non-sparse, direct measurements on a the scale of climate change - including periods on the order of thousands to millions of years. If you decomposed temperature variations sampled with a suitable rate and period (in space and time) you would find very noisy frequency and period spectra. It's like measuring the waveform of a song. With out current methods we are sampling the last second of a 3 minute song, sparkly estimating points from the rest of the song, and trying to make predictions for future sounds - in 3D. There is nothing which doesn't suggest that we aren't in a warming period which happens to line up with out estimates of anthropogenic CO2 production, and historic estimates are simply not precise enough to definitively determine that past changes did not regularly occur with the same rate. All I'm saying is that people need to recognize that doomsday scenarios are absolute worst case black swan predictions, and there is a lot less certainty to this pseudo-settled science than the zeitgeist would allow one to admit. Look at the reception received by anyone who raises critical points - the same pressures bias most literature on the subject.

alea_iacta_est 5y ago

> The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. The self righteous people like you are way more dangerous in my humble opinion...

tjr225 5y ago
Unfortunately for you we don't have time to care about your feelings. I've got a daughter who is going to have to live in this mess.

sintaxi 5y ago

The IPCC doesn't produce scientific research as you are implying. The purpose of the IPCC is to justify the basis of "global climate action" so their opinion has no relevancy when it comes to debating the scientific upsides and downsides of rising CO2. What few people seem to realize is that during the last ice age CO2 levels @180ppm was so low life on earth for mankind nearly collapsed - and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past - so there is significant reason to be at ease with a rising CO2 considering how close to extinction level CO2 was a short while ago.

jhgb 5y ago
> and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past The last time that CO2 levels were around 8000ppm was also the time when the solar flux was several percent lower. So this argument doesn't really work the way you thought it worked.

tryonenow 5y ago

>Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? As a matter of fact I have, though not in a few years. The papers and the commentary are both far less certain in their assertions than you would ever guess judging by the common fervor against "denialists". >Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding. No, it's based on studies of modern [0] and prehistoric plants. The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. >The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis. The "rhetoric" I'm spewing is scientifically rational skepticism. The current science as practiced is one sided, primarily because of reactions like yours, which equate differing opinions with heresy. Climate science is far from settled and so called denialism is nowhere near the same level as flat earth/chemtrails/antivax skepticism to which it is dismissively compared. Also you haven't made a single argument against my point that we are looking at a tiny fraction of a periodic signal and presuming a trend - and that's because there fundamentally is no argument against it. 0. https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-...

antod 5y ago
> No, it's based on studies of modern [0] and prehistoric plants. The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. So back then they were "rapidly" sequestering it out of the atmosphere rather than doing their darndest to put it back in the air? Do we also need to resurrect all those prehistoric plants to help deal with it instead of burning and clearing the tropical rainforests we currently have? If the Carboniferous is how nature deals with too much CO2 over millions of years, we certainly aren't letting it take the same approach this time.
titzer 5y ago
> The Carboniferous period for example had CO2 levels comparable to today's and an explosion of coal forming plant growth. This is not what I read here[1]. > Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell during the Carboniferous Period from roughly 8 times the current level in the beginning, to a level similar to today's at the end.[14] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

nerdponx 5y ago

Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding. Somewhat off-topic, but this is exactly the kind of reasoning I see promulgated by a lot of conspiracy theorists, and more broadly by people who refuse to let go of outdated policies and ideas about the world. There is a certain arrogance inherent in the belief that you can understand anything just by thinking about it.

titzer 5y ago
> by a lot of conspiracy theorists, And climate denialists, who generally fall back on their weak intuitions. It'd be overgenerous to compare them to Newtonian physicists failing to grasp Relativity--the former was at least a respectable, experimentally verifiable theory that one could get to with basic calculus and the straight lines our minds draw for us, and not an inaccessible mathematical theory requiring graduate study to grasp that warps your mind just like it warps space time. A lot of people are like Flat Earthers who won't look through a pair of binoculars to watch a ship disappear over the horizon. It's both right in front of their face and yet beyond their reach; it needs just a smidgen of education, and they'd see it for themselves. It is this way with climate change denialists. But things are looking up! Monarchs are basically extinct now, the Arctic will be ice-free in summer sooner than expected, and floods in Florida are picking up! Some people are gonna get an education soon!
- tryonenow 5y ago
  >the former was at least a respectable, experimentally verifiable theory One of the major problems with climate science is that it is fundamentally not experimentally verifiable. That almost places it in the category of soft science. Laymen tend to underestimate the uncertainty of the so called consensus. It is a fundamental property of the field of Climate Science. It will not be comfortable in certainty to something like Newtonian Physics until we have non-sparse, direct measurements on a the scale of climate change - including periods on the order of thousands to millions of years. If you decomposed temperature variations sampled with a suitable rate and period (in space and time) you would find very noisy frequency and period spectra. It's like measuring the waveform of a song. With out current methods we are sampling the last second of a 3 minute song, sparkly estimating points from the rest of the song, and trying to make predictions for future sounds - in 3D. There is nothing which doesn't suggest that we aren't in a warming period which happens to line up with out estimates of anthropogenic CO2 production, and historic estimates are simply not precise enough to definitively determine that past changes did not regularly occur with the same rate. All I'm saying is that people need to recognize that doomsday scenarios are absolute worst case black swan predictions, and there is a lot less certainty to this pseudo-settled science than the zeitgeist would allow one to admit. Look at the reception received by anyone who raises critical points - the same pressures bias most literature on the subject.