4 ms·

> The article is a bit all over the place. Must an observation have an easily digestible value judgement and tell you how you should think about it, or can it

by platz 3y ago

> The article is a bit all over the place. Must an observation have an easily digestible value judgement and tell you how you should think about it, or can it just be allowed to present the facts and list the pros and cons. which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Did you yourself not also include a portion of your comment to respond to article based on its data with your own "it depends" based on other data? > The tone suggests they're afraid of the change What do you think they lay person would immediately think about 'the earth is greening' and would it be appropriate to address those initial perceptions.

paulsutter 3y ago
The issue is just the opposite: the article is making a value judgment in the absence of objective data. I interpret the comment saying more info and less judgement please
- platz 3y ago
  The objective data is the greenness of the earth measured by satellites. the article offers multiple possible explanations for this and what their effects might be. it acknowledges those derivative outcomes are speculative.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    All of the offered explanations still paint humans as the perpetrators of a crime against the environment. Not once is a greening planet painted in a positive light in this article. Its as if the writer is afraid to say something positive about CO2 emissions.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      They do so because, just because something is greener does not make it better for humanity. For example, we can have "greener" algae blooms that nevertheless eat up the oxygen in a lake or ocean and then we have no fish to eat.
    - varelaseb 3y ago
      Optimizing for "green" is not what we're trying to achieve here. Mountains get greener when the tree line climbs as a sign of it's ecological decline. Stable forest and weather systems, biodiversity, bioavailability of nutrients in the ground are things closer to the interest of ecological causes.
      - oceanplexian 3y ago
        Before is was physically possible for humans to change the climate most of the northern hemisphere was covered in a 4km thick sheet of ice. Then it melted and now there are forests. This melting also happened completely naturally and wasn’t because the cave men were putting out too much CO2. This was done by the natural processes of the Earth, so recently even humans were alive during the Ice Age. Some scientists even say that we are due for another ice age, that we may be otherwise avoiding due to climate change.
        silverquiet 3y ago
        Humans were around for the ice age, but not any of the humans I know. That was about 4 degrees Celsius, right? Over thousands of years. Meanwhile, my mom has lived through about 1.5 already and will probably see 2 in her life. Hell, depending on the breaks, I might live to see 3. Compressing a geological age into a human lifetime is bound to have some wacky effects. I can’t imagine being a kid today and thinking how much they’ll live to see.
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    > The objective data is the greenness of the earth Which is a quantitative statement. Altered conditions will not benefit every local species equally. > Context matters
graycat 3y ago
> which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Hmm, apparently the answer depends!!! What I believe is "healthier", e.g., for (1) my being informed or (2) click-bait headlines, eyeballs, ad revenue???? But, now, for > the facts and list the pros and cons. there is a possibility, that is, from some changes from the Internet: First, the basic ideas of click-bait, etc. go way back in the history of many decades of journalism publishers. They needed a lot of revenue: Printing plants, trucks to deliver literally tons of news print or magazines, ..., radio and TV studios, etc. were expensive. The number of publishers was constrained: Each major city had just two main newspapers, morning and evening. There were a few national magazines. Then, the number of large radio stations, TV stations, were similarly limited. Un, click-bait that works in one major city stands to work everywhere which creates the constraints on the number of national click-bait publishers. > easily digestible value judgment and tell you how you should think Well put. For the big publishers, that is what dominated. For a good review and explanation going way back, see the ~1941 movie Meet John Doe. Second, now the decades, 100+ years, of such journalism is also being attempted on the Web sites of the Internet -- thus, your well put objection. BUT ...!!!! For an audience and a publisher for > the facts and list the pros and cons. they no longer need be so expensive. A single tower case computer can send, what, 100+ Web pages a second? Sooo, now the mass audience can have subsets. Some simple arithmetic: Assume 1 ad per Web page sent, revenue of $1 per 1000 ads displayed, sending a 24 x 7 average of 50 Web pages a second. Assume pre-tax earnings are 50% of revenue. Then annual earnings would be 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 572,400 dollars. Assume the business is worth 100 times annual earnings, and get 100 * 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 57,240,000 dollars. A possibility for > the facts and list the pros and cons. is the economy: A lot of data is available. Could present it in largely some simple X-Y graphs can do routinely with, say, Excel in Microsoft's Office. Another possibility: For COVID, start with the crucial data in the report of the Phase III trials in https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 COVID and medicine more generally are good subjects for > the facts and list the pros and cons. Follow, say, common high school standards for term papers, e.g., careful references, hopefully to credible primary sources. Get an audience that values credibility. Then get a brand, a growing audience, and a successful business. Hmm, yup, I have a related startup -- Web site code running as intended. Should go live this year.

by platz 3y ago

paulsutter 3y ago

The issue is just the opposite: the article is making a value judgment in the absence of objective data. I interpret the comment saying more info and less judgement please

platz 3y ago
The objective data is the greenness of the earth measured by satellites. the article offers multiple possible explanations for this and what their effects might be. it acknowledges those derivative outcomes are speculative.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  All of the offered explanations still paint humans as the perpetrators of a crime against the environment. Not once is a greening planet painted in a positive light in this article. Its as if the writer is afraid to say something positive about CO2 emissions.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    They do so because, just because something is greener does not make it better for humanity. For example, we can have "greener" algae blooms that nevertheless eat up the oxygen in a lake or ocean and then we have no fish to eat.
  - varelaseb 3y ago
    Optimizing for "green" is not what we're trying to achieve here. Mountains get greener when the tree line climbs as a sign of it's ecological decline. Stable forest and weather systems, biodiversity, bioavailability of nutrients in the ground are things closer to the interest of ecological causes.
    - oceanplexian 3y ago
      Before is was physically possible for humans to change the climate most of the northern hemisphere was covered in a 4km thick sheet of ice. Then it melted and now there are forests. This melting also happened completely naturally and wasn’t because the cave men were putting out too much CO2. This was done by the natural processes of the Earth, so recently even humans were alive during the Ice Age. Some scientists even say that we are due for another ice age, that we may be otherwise avoiding due to climate change.
      - silverquiet 3y ago
        Humans were around for the ice age, but not any of the humans I know. That was about 4 degrees Celsius, right? Over thousands of years. Meanwhile, my mom has lived through about 1.5 already and will probably see 2 in her life. Hell, depending on the breaks, I might live to see 3. Compressing a geological age into a human lifetime is bound to have some wacky effects. I can’t imagine being a kid today and thinking how much they’ll live to see.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  > The objective data is the greenness of the earth Which is a quantitative statement. Altered conditions will not benefit every local species equally. > Context matters

graycat 3y ago

> which one do you think leads to a healthier media environment Hmm, apparently the answer depends!!! What I believe is "healthier", e.g., for (1) my being informed or (2) click-bait headlines, eyeballs, ad revenue???? But, now, for > the facts and list the pros and cons. there is a possibility, that is, from some changes from the Internet: First, the basic ideas of click-bait, etc. go way back in the history of many decades of journalism publishers. They needed a lot of revenue: Printing plants, trucks to deliver literally tons of news print or magazines, ..., radio and TV studios, etc. were expensive. The number of publishers was constrained: Each major city had just two main newspapers, morning and evening. There were a few national magazines. Then, the number of large radio stations, TV stations, were similarly limited. Un, click-bait that works in one major city stands to work everywhere which creates the constraints on the number of national click-bait publishers. > easily digestible value judgment and tell you how you should think Well put. For the big publishers, that is what dominated. For a good review and explanation going way back, see the ~1941 movie Meet John Doe. Second, now the decades, 100+ years, of such journalism is also being attempted on the Web sites of the Internet -- thus, your well put objection. BUT ...!!!! For an audience and a publisher for > the facts and list the pros and cons. they no longer need be so expensive. A single tower case computer can send, what, 100+ Web pages a second? Sooo, now the mass audience can have subsets. Some simple arithmetic: Assume 1 ad per Web page sent, revenue of $1 per 1000 ads displayed, sending a 24 x 7 average of 50 Web pages a second. Assume pre-tax earnings are 50% of revenue. Then annual earnings would be 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 572,400 dollars. Assume the business is worth 100 times annual earnings, and get 100 * 50 * 3600 * 24 * 265 / ( 1000 * 2 ) = 57,240,000 dollars. A possibility for > the facts and list the pros and cons. is the economy: A lot of data is available. Could present it in largely some simple X-Y graphs can do routinely with, say, Excel in Microsoft's Office. Another possibility: For COVID, start with the crucial data in the report of the Phase III trials in https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 COVID and medicine more generally are good subjects for > the facts and list the pros and cons. Follow, say, common high school standards for term papers, e.g., careful references, hopefully to credible primary sources. Get an audience that values credibility. Then get a brand, a growing audience, and a successful business. Hmm, yup, I have a related startup -- Web site code running as intended. Should go live this year.