3 ms·
Assuming that permafrost is going not only be a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but also trigger a runaway reaction is the alarmism. They're not being po
by Manuel_D 4y ago
Assuming that permafrost is going not only be a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but also trigger a runaway reaction is the alarmism. They're not being politically palatable, they're making predictions based on the data that we have and being honest.
- culi 4y ago#1 The likely scenario we don't yet have evidence to make a strong claim about: it's a huge effect #2 The conservative position: it's going to have an effect #3 The radical position that goes completely against any existing science: it won't have any effect Why choose #3?
- Manuel_D 4y agoThere's an asteroid headed for earth. It's going to kill us all. We need to drop everything, including our effort on climate change, to redirect it. I can't actually find the asteroid, but should we still follow through with my demands?
- culi 4y agoDo you understand how the example you just gave is exactly the opposite of the actual scenario I tried to paint. My ENTIRE point is that it's a continuum. It's not a binary thing. The point is that there's gonna be an impact and it's gonna be somewhere between 2.35 and 6.25 of impact on some arbitrary scale I just made up. Why would we act as if it's 0 when we could at LEAST act as if it's 2.35?? Your scenario is exactly the opposite of this and a really unhelpful metaphor
- Manuel_D 4y agoWhere does the lower bound of 2.35 come from? When you state this lower bound you are saying that we know with certainty that at least this much impact will happen. We lack that data so there's no lower bound, or rather the lower bound is zero. You could falsely claim a lower bound, but that erodes the credibility of the environmental movement.