There are a couple of problems. First of all cardiology is pretty well developed sience. While climate science is new.
Second my doctor is not government funded to tell to everyone that they have heart desease and if they stop they will lose their job. That is the difference.
Depending on the funding though, they may suggest different threatment to heart disease. Happend to a family member with a rotator injury. Went to 3 different specialists, every single one of them identified the same injury but proposed different threatment depending on their speciality - rehabilitation, operation and etc.
So if you ask 100 climate scientist to paid to do research on climate change, I do expect them all to say there is a climate change problem. The climate indeed changes. However since I am sceptical I also expect them to come up with the craziest reasons for why it happens, like human inducted reasons, so they keep their jobs and funding.
By the way, you still did not convince me on Ivermectin. You mainly showed there is research done. I knew there was a research done as well. And plenty of it has been fake research with low dosage, so it gives bad results.
It’s newer. Both are changing daily as new research is being done.
So you think every scientist is government funded to only be alarmist? Cardiology has plenty of government funded science behind it.
I think it would be very dismissive to have issues with science that has government funding. That’s basically casting out all science.
It sounds like you’ve got a bias you’ve read somewhere that has convinced you it’s a government funded hoax. I can’t help you there.
If someone believes 9/11 was an inside job or the Holocaust didn’t happen that’s a nonstarter with me. I’m an Occam’s Razer guy and the simplest answer is often the correct one. The simplest answer here is not they are all in on it together. But I can’t prove that.
Keep in mind my original post towards you during this was taking issue with you saying you didn’t like the word because they make it seem urgent. And maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s nothing. Maybe we can’t do anything about it.
But a lot of problems are compounded by a lack of urgency. Hence my toothbrush and weight loss examples. If you wait until it’s a major problem it’s far worse than if you take the risk seriously early on. And this seems like a classic case of a potential problem where waiting until it’s undeniable seems unwise.
You said you bet the only people talking about it were from the Joe Rogan podcast. My multiple links from big media outlets proved that wrong. I wasn’t trying to convince you it had no merit. Merely that it was being discussed months before that happened.
There is a flaw in this thinking. What is the government? Who is the government? Scientists have said there is climate change under both Democrats and Republicans.
Temps are getting so high in Pakistan it’s literally inhospitable. Inhabitants have to dump cold water over themselves every fifteen minutes or so to avoid dying from hyperthermia.
No. There’s nothing “new” within the methodologies of the numerous scientific disciplines that have reached the same conclusion here (a reputable compilation: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ )
The only things actually “new” are the time estimates and proposed solutions and so on… which, by design, are open to further modification (as further data/observations continue to trickle in)
No question funding matters, so let’s examine the sources/cites/links you might provide to further your stance (and ‘follow the money’ that informs them, just the same)
Trust the science… But it seems to be a slippery slope
American’s like to fight for individualism, civil liberties and the likes
Is there a slippery slope between restrictions and going full Australia?
America wouldn’t accept it, just food for thought… Before you say lockdowns are the answer, Australia has been in lockdown (I considered totally closed borders “locked down” for more/less two years now. Shut out from the rest of the world
To be more clear we were jokingly saying that people who think smart people will figure out what to do if climate change hits hard as well aren’t doing what smart people ask right now in America,
I have never said long term lockdowns are an answer to anything regarding Covid. But we also have a population that has shown to be incredibly adverse to simple measures. Where I live at the peak of Covid we had maybe 25% of people wearing masks.
The gulf between what America is doing and what Australia is doing is so wide it’s like we aren’t even talking about the same subject. Hell our vaccination rate in this state is 46%.
We have a large amount of people working in the health care field who won’t get vaccinated or wear masks in public. I know a lot of nurses in the areas I’m from and they are posting anti vax and anti mask stuff frequently. And if you haven’t heard a super unpopular person didn’t win the Presidency and they think that was stolen. You can convince them of that with no evidence but you can’t convince them that Covid is anything really no matter who dies around them.
I have never and would never advocate for what your response has been like. And to be clear I’m all for civil liberties and individualism as well. But I also think it’s beyond fine to call people out in America for not taking simple steps in a country that has been hit the hardest by Covid.
And you should be proud to have such strong borders and not have to deal with immigration.
That was sarcasm if it wasn’t obvious.
Others try get through the borders on boat. For these refugees we have inhumane off shore detention centres where we house immigrants indefinately… Where human rights abuses, beatings etc take place regularly… We lock up who tried to come in without an end date, not that it serves as a deterrent.
Yeah I was being sarcastic about the shut off from the world part. Not that you had none at all. Sarcasm like it would be a dream to some to have no one come to this country.
i am not saying it is political. I am saying that government funded research has financial insentive to scream we are important, so they keep getting the money flaw. I have reasons to be sceptical. I will mention again Fauci, the Chinese lab for reference.
There are way too many maybes. This is why I rather do nothing and invest in ecological problems like street cleaning, air polution, ocean cleaning instead of wasting money on bad research. I rather not change our entire economy on maybes leaded by our incompetent government structures or profit hungry corporations, based on fund risers/scientists. Maybe we should leave it be?
Are you of the opinion that human activity, even over say 100 years, cannot lead to environmental changes beyond our ability to adapt?
If you are, how can the examples from history be explained? (climate shifts and environmental degradation on much smaller scales appear to have played a role in the collapse of hundreds, perhaps thousands of societies large and small, on every continent)
If, in general, you are not, what form do you think warnings of such changes should take? If not to scientists, to whom should the general public and their representatives listen?
(Please treat these as the genuine, if unoriginal questions they are, and not sophisticated trolling.)
Humans did not have the means to mitigate. The graph I showed above (and website I linked) paint a good picture of how much our capabilities have developed.
I think the same from they have assumed now is fine.
Im suggesting that scientists are not the only people we should listen to. Economists, industry experts, and other people with specialized knowledge and experience also provide meaningful insight.
Im mostly suggesting who to ignore, namely the people who insist this is an existential crisis requiring another attempt at top-down social engineering across the whole population.