I can see some climate scientists just saying that 2.5C won’t be as dire as others predict without being stupid or paid off. There are often contrarians and sometimes (not often, but sometimes) they can be right, so it’s healthy to have them even when there is broad consensus. It’s how we came to accept ideas like plate tectonics.
So sure, maybe some of them are paid off (I doubt any of them are stupid since they have scientific degrees), but maybe some of them just disagree about the predictions for whatever semi-legitimate or maybe even legitimate reason and that’s fine. It’s worth exploring why just in case they could be right. The thing is, they’re scientists who are dissenting, not just some random guy on Facebook, which is why it’s worth exploring them.
I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?
A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.
We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.
Apparently those brainiacs with their fancy book learnin’ and expertise are useless. We must all sift through hundreds of thousands of pages of raw data before reaching any conclusions. The entire concept of career specialization is wrong! Throw it out!
Yeah, I used to run into you in r/skeptic a lot, fighting the good fight lol. And we both know the mods of that sub let it be overrun with all types of deniers and insane conspiracy theorists… But at least those trolls put a little more effort into it than just scoffing at experts.
That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.
The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.
If someone could convincingly scientifically back up their belief that climate change isn't going to be a big deal, they'd be swimming in oil company money to promote their work. There's definitely an incentive to research it if you think the other way.
If they’re not the ones to give us that data, who would? Polling experts in the field is different from asking fisherman if they think we should eat fish
What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.
“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” Gretta Pecl of the University of Tasmania told The Guardian. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”
But, reason to keep fighting:
Others found hope in the climate activism and awareness of younger generations, and in the finding that each extra tenth of a degree of warming avoided protects 140 million people from extreme temperatures.
Add comment