Because Science!!!

submitted by Questionable from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You'll find heat in both rainforests and deserts. Now, what I think you're getting at is that, yes, in fact, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were really pumped up to 500, 600, whatever ppm, and everybody heated up a few more degrees, the places that ended up with good rainfall would probably be quite suitable for growing crops! If the soil was also decent, of course. But there's issues of, where's that going to be, what will be the rainfall and climate in the farmland we already have, how quickly can our agricultural centers really shift while maintaining production, how much will the coastlines recede along the way, what other species will be unable to biologically adapt to the rapid shifts and go extinct...

Humans in general are quite well-equipped to survive global warming as a species, and probably even to make the best of the world that results from it. Which is good, because I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it, save maybe geoengineering via sulphate aerosols. But there'll be a lot of disruption and losses and, almost certainly, human suffering along the way. If we could, it would probably be best to avoid it.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it

I think the past two year are proof enough that you can guilt society into anything. Even killing themselves in the name of 'science'. As long as you craft a conniving enough story to go along with it. By the way, it's not 'global warming' anymore, it's "climate change" now, as 'the science has changed'.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Climate change has always been the more common term.

Imagine being so small that you care more about the label newspapers use to talk about a thing than the thing itself. I suppose you think that Meta is completely different from Facebook because they changed their company name? No of course you don't. So why are you pretending to care that people have two terms for the same thing?

As global temperatures get hotter, the climate changes. Duh. As the climate changes, short-term and localised weather patterns become more unpredictable, and can be either colder or warmer, depending on the time of the year and literally which way the wind blows. Duh again. This isn't rocket science, its common bloody sense.

(On the other hand, predicting precisely what those changes will be, and the short-term consequences, are significantly harder than rocket science.)

But tell me, what would you suggest we do as we learn more and discover new facts? Stick our heads in the sand and ignore them? You're not one of those creeps who think that anything that wasn't written in the Koran is irrelevant? What year do you think we should close the book on scientific knowledge and say "There is nothing new for us to learn"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was my understanding that newspapers incorrectly ran with global warming to sensationalise climate change. Once called out on it, the use of the term reduced.

Despite the global warming terminology, climate change has now been used incorrectly by the media to describe weather patterns to instill fear in local populations. This is why very cold winter s of late are referred to as just weather by the media, but our recent warmer weather in Europe was described incorrectly as climate change. This is a replacement for the term global warming as they continue to persist in referencing only to climate change when there is warmer weather. And this has nothing to do with global temperature rising over decades, in some cases it's merely the gulf stream or el nino.

We have recently been taking more and more temperature data from airports, this skews climate models in the favour of those who seek to push lockdown mandates on climate change, and increase carbon taxes. When airport data is removed, the UK was cooler in the 2010"s than the 2000's, but this doesn't help push the propaganda.

Carbon policy and climate science is geared toward man made carbon ONLY. There is no accounting for the solar cycle, the big ball in the sky that heats the planet. There is little government policy that would ever take volcanic activity into account. It's a big scam.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My apologizes. I mistook you for a thinking, rational human being, with an ability to make observations. But you're not are you? You're the sort that gets giddy when you're told how smart you are.

Now go prove how smart you are, and answer a resounding "NO!" to this Question!

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dunning-Kruger score, 9 out of 10. It must be nice to know so little and think you know so much.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry I didn't reply to your bating Questions and statements. Why would I do that? You made no arguments. And to top if off, you are not u/Electronic_Antelope , and seem to be picking up some bad mannerism from Chinese bot accounts.

What I find most striking is your use of the word "imagine" as a premise, which is most common with Chinese bots. Now image that you are a thinking rational human being. How would that effect you? Oops, sorry, I didn't define what "that" was. I guess I'll let you fill in that blank yourself. It's either this, or that. Take a stab at it.

Now for the brunt of your argument. Right off the bat, you don't seem to know what the word "always" means, and are using it to push a narrative. Not going to address that. There is nothing there to address besides my own imagination, as you have told me to image something. Am I to literally argue both positions and check back with you, and tell you who won? Alright. I had a debate, and I won.

After which you then ramble on emotionally about, heat, and hotter, and... hot?... Did I mention the heat?... The korr̪͍̦̹ͬ͋͂̉an? More Chinese bot mannerisms? No seriously, you tell me, what I was supposed to reply to. OMG! Wait... I get it now! Super you are win! You are big win forever!

On a side note. You should make note, of this note:

One should not wish for common sense, when in fact, what is desired is uncommon sense.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's both, of course. Global warming refers specifically to the rising temperatures, climate change refers to the suite of other effects that go along with that, like those shifts in rainfall patterns previously mentioned. Associated with the temperature change, but not, strictly speaking, the same thing.

They try to predict those too, but, eh, I'm dubious how accurate any such prediction can be - it's trying to model a phenomenon a hell of a lot more complex than the temperature, which ultimately is a simpler system of energy out vs energy in.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And yet they model solutions that produce MORE CO2? And somehow heightened profits? Amazing, if they are 'wrong', they still improve the environment, and the only difference is that they get all the credit and money. All while we are lulled into the false belief that our sacrifices, made a difference.

What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Better for who I ask?