3 ms·
Sounds about as accurate as the doomsday clock. Also we're outside of the safe operating region of "land-system change?" Every one of the 9 somewhat arbitrary m
by IAmNotACellist 3y ago
Sounds about as accurate as the doomsday clock. Also we're outside of the safe operating region of "land-system change?" Every one of the 9 somewhat arbitrary metrics they chose are bound in complicated, non-linear arrangements with numerous other metrics, most of which they don't track. Pulling one lever will move 50 other cogs over the course of decades, at various rates, with various other linkages. It's silly to condense down environmental landscape changes to one thing like "land-system change" and assign it a single axis of goodness vs. badness.
- digging 3y ago> It's silly to condense down environmental landscape changes to one thing like "land-system change" and assign it a single axis of goodness vs. badness. Are you saying it's better not to measure and predict these things, or do you have a less "silly" model than these climate scientists? As you say, it's an incredibly complex system. It has to be reduced to broad strokes or else you can't make meaningful predictions.
- IAmNotACellist 3y agoWhy would I have a less silly model than these specific climate scientists? Because I'm saying that its shortcomings make it more hurtful than helpful? A moviegoer criticizing a documentary doesn't need to have made a better documentary himself.