There's a Little Black Spot on the Sun Today [remix]

Once again, misogynistic a-holes attack women who stand up for what they and the majority of the science community believe in. Can't believe so many weak men are scared of her!
This is part of the buttressing evidence towards the base nature and shallow mentality of those that the mentioned publications are aimed at; those who have a narrative based more in the politics of control then the understanding of actual Science

Denier
Racist
Misogynist
Xenophobe
Christian...
 
Wat is willing to wager that there will be some climate change in the next few weeks.


It's called Autumn . . . .
 
THE LEAVES ARE FALLING!
THE LEAVES ARE FALLING!
THE LEAVES ARE FALLING!

It's the end of the world! Repent! Repent ye heathens and erect burning men in appeasement of Gaia!
 
Something that I've pointed out for a really long time now (publish or perish syndrome):

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science,want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.


https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
You published a paper? Well look at you!
 
And here's the counter argument (we're all going to die remix):

Citing a “scientific consensus,” the authors analyzed 180 studies on climate change and mortality, converging on a “1000-ton rule,” which means for every 1,000 tons of fossil fuel burned, a person dies.

The article, published in the journal Energies, contends that “a future person is killed every time humanity burns 1000 tons of fossil carbon,” based on a calculation that “burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will cause 2°C of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which in turn will cause roughly a billion future premature deaths spread over a period of very roughly one century.”

Estimates of world population growth suggest that by 2100 there will be just over 10 billion humans on the planet, meaning that 10 percent of humanity will die from climate change, if the study’s authors are to be believed.

https://www.breitbart.com/environme...lion-deaths-from-climate-change-this-century/
 
Wat is willing to wager that there will be some climate change in the next few weeks.


It's called Autumn . . . .
Would you care to predict which upcoming month will be cooler than average?
The past 534 months have all been hotter than average. It seems way overdue.
 
So if racists race more and lifted truck guys roll more coal, then we can thin out the population? Sweet!!! Let's get started!!!
 
Back
Top