2
-2

[–] mr_Bonkers 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It is sombering not sobering.

1
-1

[–] TelescopiumHerscheli 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

There's no point in mentioning this here. (a) This is Voat, which is full of anthropogenic client change deniers. (b) You've posted this in /v/science, which is untrustworthy as a source of scientific articles following the elimination of moderators in this subverse a few months ago. Articles cited here now have to be voted on by non-scientists and loons of assorted stripes before they pass muster. I long ago stopped reading /v/science, and I imagine there are many others like me. I only saw this because it made the front page. Popularity is not an appropriate criterion for judging scientific results.

0
0

[–] Boris ago 

Well where do you suggest us non-science folk go?

0
1

[–] TelescopiumHerscheli 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

To be honest, I don't know. If you mean "where should non-scientific people with an interest in science go for their news?" I'd suggest a dedicated science news website, but I'm not sure which is the best one to recommend. I'm not a scientist myself, though I have a fair degree of training in mathematical physics from earlier study, so although I can spot drivel I'm not best placed to name the best science news website.

If you mean "where should us non-science folk go to express an opinion on the accuracy of scientific results?" I'd suggest that you simply refrain from doing so. If you're not a scientist you're probably not really qualified to express an opinion on peer-reviewed papers. I certainly don't, as a general rule, express an opinion of matters of scientific fact and experimental results, and I suggest you don't either. We're not well-informed enough and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

If, however, you mean "where should us non-science folk go to discuss the social implications of some scientific result we've read about?" I suppose Voat is as good a place as any. The truth is that most of us are incompetent to discuss such things seriously, so keeping our comments to Voat, where they are nicely isolated from the serious world, is probably wise. I wouldn't look to Voat for a serious discussion of the morality of cloning, or GMOs, or global warming, or any of a thousand other scientific issues, because Voaters are not serious thinkers, at least insofar as they post on Voat. (I include myself in this, of course.) Tragically, people come to Voat to howl. (Again, I include myself in this!) When I first joined Voat I had some hopes that it would be an interesting place to share serious and entertaining opinion and comment, but these days I recognise that it's just another puddle of pond life.

2
0

[–] Broc_Lia 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Meanwhile, athletes preparing for the Olympics have been setting a frenzy of athletic records in the lead up to the games. Dissatisfied with their performance, coaches hired consultants from the climate-change-science community and hit upon the incredible new technique of simple adjusting their data using models.

"It's incredible" gasps Sven Utgardsson, a swimming coach, "All this time Helga, my swimmer, had been underperforming, but the theory stated that she should be faster, so clearly the actual times were wrong. We added 30 seconds to her results when we turned them in and suddenly she was winning medals."

6
0

[–] Animaillian 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago  (edited ago)

But global warming is a good thing. Why do people think otherwise? warmer weather => nicer climate, greater agricultural productivity, Antarctica and Greenland would be green again like they were in the past. Some flooding but Holland has dealt with that no worries. The earth is very cold compared to it's normal state

This idea that warm weather is bad is the most amazingly successful scam the left has ever...well, one of the best anyway

2
1

[–] kmojo 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

Doesn't research show that the times of highest co2 on the planet are also the times with the most abundant life?

3
-2

[–] Broc_Lia 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

And that colder climates mean bigger deserts.

3
-2

[–] Animaillian 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Plants need CO2 to get carbon for growth. The more CO2 there is the faster they grow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Look at this, from the time mammals took over the planet 65 million years ago until about 3 million years ago earth was hot, sometimes much hotter than now. Life thrived on earth during that period.

I have argued with climate activists before, none of them have any idea that the earth is normally much hotter than at present. But the science is sound, not controversial at all.

0
6

[–] throughtheblack 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

In other news, the Emperor was seen wearing his most fantastic new clothes yet.

4
0

[–] carbanara 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Have any models been made that predict the weather change accurately? I have never seen one.

4
-1

[–] Gorillion 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

Well, you white coated fucks had better invent a technological fix quick sharp then, cuz I ain't got enough invested in this shitshow anymore to bother reducing my carbon footprint. You pissholes can suck my smog.

8
1

[–] aboutime 8 points 1 point (+9|-8) ago 

If these stats are anything like the economics stats we are given then I call BULLSHIT from this BULLSHIT administration and their BULLSHIT "experts".

[–] [deleted] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] DickHertz 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Ignorance about statistics is something we need less of in the world.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)