- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Re: Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’
Let me be very clear from the outset with the both of you: I'm not going to debate this with either of you. There's very obvious reasons for doing so, and they're the same reasons that I don't seriously engage with flat earth theorists, creationists, or pick your other favorite semi-pervasive pseudoscientific belief. The first issue is that it requires me to educate you in a topic that you have likely been systematically lied to about. This is bad because I am not an expert (and to 97% certainty I can say that neither are you two) and thus it falls upon me to do a lot of research that I'm not getting paid to do. And this means that basically the game goes like this:
And round and round that would go. I'm too old for that kind of nonsense anymore. What you're asking for is free education where someone else finds all of your references for you, proof and find the flaws in your own references for you, and so forth --likely while you berate them. I have absolutely no interest in playing this role for either of you, certainly not without being paid for it, anyways.
If you're genuinely interested in learning about science and coming to your own conclusions based on the actual scientific evidence and arguments, I thoroughly recommend you dip your toes in by watching the science journalist potholer54 on YouTube (There's plenty of people who do this work, but I personally like his work the best). The first step to understanding what the actual nature/seriousness of global warming, as it was for myself, is to purge yourself of the completely erroneous, unabashed falsehoods surrounding the anti-climate change debate, including understanding what Al Gore did and didn't get right as well as the outright falsehoods made by global warming denial "experts" (Hint: Almost without exception, they aren't experts, and the ones who are experts aren't what you think they are), as well as the political discussions before and after.
Once you expectations flip for who is lying about what and why, it's pretty easy look at the articles regarding the severity of global warming, written by reliable science journalists, and accept them for what they are: Facts. As for the specifics that have been alluded to, again, I leave the research up to yourselves, I've already done it for myself. But needless to say, an increase in over 2.5 Celsius in the averaged global temperature will have devastating world effects in terms of crops, shorelines, etc. In terms of the damage already being done each year, the statistically significant increase in weather seems to be incurring of order hundred billions of dollars yearly, and over the coming century, the costs will only increase steeply. Not to mention the cost of things people can't predict just yet, the cost of military engagements that will increase as wars of resources continue, the loss of ecosystems, etc.
Let me be very clear from the outset with the both of you: I'm not going to debate this with either of you. There's very obvious reasons for doing so, and they're the same reasons that I don't seriously engage with flat earth theorists, creationists, or pick your other favorite semi-pervasive pseudoscientific belief. The first issue is that it requires me to educate you in a topic that you have likely been systematically lied to about. This is bad because I am not an expert (and to 97% certainty I can say that neither are you two) and thus it falls upon me to do a lot of research that I'm not getting paid to do. And this means that basically the game goes like this:
1.) You make a claim (Or you try to get me to make a claim, then we start on point 2).
2.) I tell you that the Y is wrong because it fails to be in accordance with X fact that's part of the scientific consensus.
3.) You tell me that X part of scientific consensus is wrong, and link me to an entirely new article, with a whole new set of completely questionable claims made by a group of people whose expertise in global warming is either not capable of being confirmed, extremely tenuous, or --in most cases-- completely absent of any technical expertise.
2.) I tell you that the Y is wrong because it fails to be in accordance with X fact that's part of the scientific consensus.
3.) You tell me that X part of scientific consensus is wrong, and link me to an entirely new article, with a whole new set of completely questionable claims made by a group of people whose expertise in global warming is either not capable of being confirmed, extremely tenuous, or --in most cases-- completely absent of any technical expertise.
And round and round that would go. I'm too old for that kind of nonsense anymore. What you're asking for is free education where someone else finds all of your references for you, proof and find the flaws in your own references for you, and so forth --likely while you berate them. I have absolutely no interest in playing this role for either of you, certainly not without being paid for it, anyways.
If you're genuinely interested in learning about science and coming to your own conclusions based on the actual scientific evidence and arguments, I thoroughly recommend you dip your toes in by watching the science journalist potholer54 on YouTube (There's plenty of people who do this work, but I personally like his work the best). The first step to understanding what the actual nature/seriousness of global warming, as it was for myself, is to purge yourself of the completely erroneous, unabashed falsehoods surrounding the anti-climate change debate, including understanding what Al Gore did and didn't get right as well as the outright falsehoods made by global warming denial "experts" (Hint: Almost without exception, they aren't experts, and the ones who are experts aren't what you think they are), as well as the political discussions before and after.
Once you expectations flip for who is lying about what and why, it's pretty easy look at the articles regarding the severity of global warming, written by reliable science journalists, and accept them for what they are: Facts. As for the specifics that have been alluded to, again, I leave the research up to yourselves, I've already done it for myself. But needless to say, an increase in over 2.5 Celsius in the averaged global temperature will have devastating world effects in terms of crops, shorelines, etc. In terms of the damage already being done each year, the statistically significant increase in weather seems to be incurring of order hundred billions of dollars yearly, and over the coming century, the costs will only increase steeply. Not to mention the cost of things people can't predict just yet, the cost of military engagements that will increase as wars of resources continue, the loss of ecosystems, etc.
