3 ms·
You don't get to say that the debate is over until there has been a debate. You don't get to "win" by silencing the opposition. I'm not taking sides, but I se
by anonymousiam 3y ago
You don't get to say that the debate is over until there has been a debate. You don't get to "win" by silencing the opposition.
I'm not taking sides, but I see lots of "alternative facts" from all sides (and there are more than two sides).
There's evidence that the earth is warming, but only if you squint a certain way. If you include the entire temperature record, and remove data from stations that didn't actually report data, and remove adjustments to the reported data (or alternatively remove the stations with "questionable" data recording methods), then all evidence of warming is gone.
The tidal data is also conflicted. There's no dispute that ocean levels are rising (as they have for tens of thousands of years), but the rate of the rise has not changed since pre-industrial times.
There's zero doubt that human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but there should be a debate (and there hasn't been one) over the point at which this becomes a problem. There are benefits to increased atmospheric CO2 such as lower diurnal temperature range (less extreme environment), increased food production, etc.
There's also the problem of getting the major contributors of the CO2 production to stop. China is at the top and has "committed" to leveling emissions at 2030 levels. Even if that happens, the whole of the remaining world could cut their emissions to zero and it would have no effect. India is number two and the same problem applies. Today now the US is committing economic suicide by eliminating energy sources and raising energy prices while the rest of the world laughs.
If you look carefully at the media reporting, you'll see that all of the climate alarm-ism comes from just a handful of extremest reporters.
If you look at the academic papers, you see a bias created by the funding sources and a reluctance of the peer-review publications to accept any skeptical works.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/ https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-o...
- anonymousiam 3y agohttps://cei.org/opeds_articles/greatest-hits-of-the-science-deniers/ https://cei.org/opeds_articles/greatest-hits-of-the-science-...
- brazzy 3y agoEvery single word of that is bullshit. 100% lies paid for by oil companies. And at this point the evidence is so clear and overwhelming that there is no reason to believes anyone argues this bullshit in good faith. Summers are getting longer and hotter, glaciers and arctic ice are receding at record speeds, those are undeniable facts that everyone can see that with their own eyes. So fuck right off with your Rupert-Murdoch-provided lies.
- ghusto 3y agoIf your goal is to help the environment, then stop this. You're accomplishing the opposite by pushing people like this away from your cause. Before you say "I don't need people like him on my side"; think about whether that's actually true. Do you need _the majority_ of the world on board for the _global_ issue? Donald Trump as president of the U.S.A. is what happens with this kind of attitude. If your goal is to be angry and self-righteous though, good job.
- brazzy 3y agoPeople like GP are impossible to convince, so the only thing left to do is shame them
- dweinus 3y ago> There's evidence that the earth is warming, but only if you squint a certain way. Get real. I used to sympathize with global warming deniers. It's 2023. The debate has been had for 40 years and now things are literally catching fire. There is not room for debate anymore.
- invalidname 3y agoYour cited source is a nypost article? The debate happened decades ago in academia. It is "settled science" as much as science can be "settled". Here's a slightly better popular science source explaining this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-...
- lotsoweiners 3y agoNot agreeing with the parent comment but if half the country still wants to debate this issue then it seems like it is too political. Climate change has been one of the democrats top issues for decades. Is there any climate change could not be a political issue?
- invalidname 3y agoI wish but unlikely. Debate in the general public doesn't convince people who've been fed misinformation for decades. People who are still getting this misinformation daily. Fox was exposed as a liar in court documents. Yet people still cite them as "truthful" vs. sources like CNN (who to be fair, aren't great). The problem is in lobbying and politicians. This would have no impact if politicians had a slight bit of a spine. They know the facts well and just don't care. The natural disasters that are hitting people in the face might solve this problem. Politicians are finally coming face to face with the results of their actions.
- chaxor 3y agoAgreed that you have to squint a certain way. Specifically to see the very small part of the timeline over human history which is relevant. The period where the rate of change in global temperatures has been significantly altered is very small when zooming out. That certainly doesn't mean it's not real. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- foverzar 3y ago> citing xkcd One of the largest issues surrounding this particular problematic is the fact that people basically treat climate change as a meme.