3 ms·

First of all: to prove Hansen wrong in the articles you picked you would need to prove that we haven't already reached the tipping points he describes. Climate

by chki 4y ago

First of all: to prove Hansen wrong in the articles you picked you would need to prove that we haven't already reached the tipping points he describes. Climate change is not a nuclear explosion, you can't see it explode but it might have done so with the effects being 50 or 100 years in the future. Secondly, the temperature is actually rising steadily, which is very different from Zeno's thought experiments. And thirdly you are not actually making an argument at all. People being wrong about tipping points might be the one's who cried wolf but in the end the wolf will still be there according to the best science available – even if there are not tipping points at all! Climate change alone is set to harm us and especially the poorest people on the planet, even if there are no additional tipping point effects.

johnnymorgan 4y ago
It's not the best science available, it's the most politically consumable science , which is different. If you haven't figured it out yet, it was never about environmentalism.
- thaanpaa 4y ago
  The claim is basically that hundreds of thousands of people, in thousands of research facilities, in more than a 100 countries are colluding to lie us about the climate. And I presume the governments who are making themselves very unpopular by trying to pass laws to reduce emissions are in on it, too, for some unfathomable reason? And the media! Thousands and thousands of publications are colluding to lie about climate research because it benefits them — how exactly? The popular mantra is that some some mythical elite is making a lot of money by trying to make the world consume less. Could someone please explain this ingenious mechanism? Most of the researchers are university students and professors with very small incomes. Research grants? In most cases you barely scrape by even if they get a grant for a year or two. A lot of them have side jobs because otherwise they couldn't pay their bills. Sh*t, I could probably come up with a 100 easier ways to make money than climate research in about 3 minutes. It's kind of funny that in this day and age the researchers are considered the elite, and not the oil barons in their ivory towers or the politicians they have bought.
  - johnnymorgan 4y ago
    It's easy, just fire or cancel anyone's funding and boom, you get consensus. Also nice way to conflate two different issues, all we are saying is the political engine in play gives zero shits about the environmentalism.
    - chki 4y ago
      But what would be the motive? As Jon Stewart said: If this was about funding for scientists, the oil and gas companies would have already made it rain in nerd-town.
      - johnnymorgan 4y ago
        Governance

by chki 4y ago

johnnymorgan 4y ago

It's not the best science available, it's the most politically consumable science , which is different. If you haven't figured it out yet, it was never about environmentalism.

thaanpaa 4y ago
The claim is basically that hundreds of thousands of people, in thousands of research facilities, in more than a 100 countries are colluding to lie us about the climate. And I presume the governments who are making themselves very unpopular by trying to pass laws to reduce emissions are in on it, too, for some unfathomable reason? And the media! Thousands and thousands of publications are colluding to lie about climate research because it benefits them — how exactly? The popular mantra is that some some mythical elite is making a lot of money by trying to make the world consume less. Could someone please explain this ingenious mechanism? Most of the researchers are university students and professors with very small incomes. Research grants? In most cases you barely scrape by even if they get a grant for a year or two. A lot of them have side jobs because otherwise they couldn't pay their bills. Sh*t, I could probably come up with a 100 easier ways to make money than climate research in about 3 minutes. It's kind of funny that in this day and age the researchers are considered the elite, and not the oil barons in their ivory towers or the politicians they have bought.
- johnnymorgan 4y ago
  It's easy, just fire or cancel anyone's funding and boom, you get consensus. Also nice way to conflate two different issues, all we are saying is the political engine in play gives zero shits about the environmentalism.
  - chki 4y ago
    But what would be the motive? As Jon Stewart said: If this was about funding for scientists, the oil and gas companies would have already made it rain in nerd-town.
    - johnnymorgan 4y ago
      Governance