← Back to context

Comment by tim333

3 hours ago

Climate science is much more complicated - there are many things you could disagree with beyond will tons of carbon change things, yes or no.

Like are we doomed or will it just get a bit warmer before we switch to solar for example.

There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists.

3 comments

tim333

Reply
raverbashing  2 hours ago

> There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. (that is: If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists)

Absolutely, the issues are similar

And if this can upend the business model of some big companies we'll give some "incentives" to some "doubtful" scientists even if their doubts are unfounded (actually very well founded but you get the gist)

Which sucks because such work should be free of pressures and incentives

  • rob_c  1 hour ago

    > we should send more money to climate scientists.

    Couldn't disagree more.

    Please spend it on those who might actually fix something. There's plenty of can remove carbon or can undo the effect of X on Y. Let's stop falling back on the bad argument of we must leave nature alone right after arguing we change billion dollar industries because we can.

    We shouldn't learn to be custodians watching the planet die because of past mistakes, we should be fixing and improving the planet and improving on nature because we can, must and should, shoulder this reaponsibility.

    Please not _yet more modelling_ burning HPC into the ground just for a crappy bar line graph (based on assumptions)...