3 ms·

Not this again. This is a number that has been doing the rounds but can be dismissed as false after less than 30 seconds of using Google and a tiny bit of brain

by dvko 3y ago

Not this again. This is a number that has been doing the rounds but can be dismissed as false after less than 30 seconds of using Google and a tiny bit of brainpower. That I had to read this on Hacker News saddens me. It’s at least 33%, not 3%. Also it’s the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters, not so much the proportion. Pretty much all CO2 above 1850 baseline levels are the direct result of human-caused emissions.

fwungy 3y ago
[flagged]
- anoxor 3y ago
  Add to that the fact that 30% of physics and chemistry can't be replicated. Science is not an unbiased and altruistic endeavor these days. It's not surprising the sugar industry funded science demonizing fat, cigarette companies "proved" that they didn't cause cancer, etc
- Two4 3y ago
  Of course there's ideology on all sides - almost everything we do is informed by one or more ideologies. The real question is which ideology is correct, or at least more correct? There's one side, which seems to rely on tenuous arguments based on poor interpretations of select evidence, or the other, which is based on a massive expert consensus centered on a mountain of evidence which all seems to lend itself to a single general conclusion. And then there's people like you, whose refusal to meaningfully engage is very convenient for continuing the status quo, a position that suits the first side just fine.
  - fwungy 3y ago
    Unfortunately what we learned in the pandemic is that "science" is a thing that happens behind closed doors and is then forced down the public's throat without allowance for public discussion or dissent. Good science can stand questions and discussion, that's how it's done. Given anthropogenic climate change is a real factor there are a lot of possible courses of response to it. Shutting down conversation by shaming is not going to build trust, and trust is vital for a meaningful climate change response.

by dvko 3y ago

fwungy 3y ago

[flagged]

anoxor 3y ago
Add to that the fact that 30% of physics and chemistry can't be replicated. Science is not an unbiased and altruistic endeavor these days. It's not surprising the sugar industry funded science demonizing fat, cigarette companies "proved" that they didn't cause cancer, etc
Two4 3y ago
Of course there's ideology on all sides - almost everything we do is informed by one or more ideologies. The real question is which ideology is correct, or at least more correct? There's one side, which seems to rely on tenuous arguments based on poor interpretations of select evidence, or the other, which is based on a massive expert consensus centered on a mountain of evidence which all seems to lend itself to a single general conclusion. And then there's people like you, whose refusal to meaningfully engage is very convenient for continuing the status quo, a position that suits the first side just fine.
- fwungy 3y ago
  Unfortunately what we learned in the pandemic is that "science" is a thing that happens behind closed doors and is then forced down the public's throat without allowance for public discussion or dissent. Good science can stand questions and discussion, that's how it's done. Given anthropogenic climate change is a real factor there are a lot of possible courses of response to it. Shutting down conversation by shaming is not going to build trust, and trust is vital for a meaningful climate change response.