But he doesn’t deny climate change, he denies that man has such a big influence on him. Or maybe he denies the theory that nature itself is not able to regulate temperature. After all, uncomfortable for a human does not mean uncomfortable for nature as a whole.
Right - we humans are generally most concerned with what’s “comfortable”. That’s a fun spin on “being able to live”. The earth will be fine with or without us, we’re just doing a good job of shooting for “without”.
Well I look forward to his contribution questioning the established science in the Journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. He should direct his profound expertise and diligent work appropriately.
Questioning acknowledged truths isn’t always denial. Science moves forward by constantly challenging established facts. It allows us to have a more detailed and solid understanding of phenomena.
Climate change deniers are generally uninformed (to put it mildly), but I’m tired of people who get triggered by any question about climate change data. Information is power y’all!
So we basically understand “weather” for roughly 8ppm of earth’s life. That said, we can infer much amount about climate (not weather, climate) from much older archeological and even paleontological evidence.
Per NASA, accurate global readings go back to 1880 and historical localized temperatures go back to the 1650s
Not much in the grand scheme of things. There was an ice age not that long ago. Nature does some funny shit.
My brother in Christ. We’re supposed to be in an Ice Age now.
The trailing end of an ice age anyway.
Probably the last one for the next 200,000 years or so…
We are in an ice age right now.
Is this comment satire?
Not even Lemmy is safe from climate change deniers.
Removed by mod
But he doesn’t deny climate change, he denies that man has such a big influence on him. Or maybe he denies the theory that nature itself is not able to regulate temperature. After all, uncomfortable for a human does not mean uncomfortable for nature as a whole.
Right - we humans are generally most concerned with what’s “comfortable”. That’s a fun spin on “being able to live”. The earth will be fine with or without us, we’re just doing a good job of shooting for “without”.
Well I look forward to his contribution questioning the established science in the Journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. He should direct his profound expertise and diligent work appropriately.
Publish : https://mts-natrevearthenviron.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex
Questioning acknowledged truths isn’t always denial. Science moves forward by constantly challenging established facts. It allows us to have a more detailed and solid understanding of phenomena. Climate change deniers are generally uninformed (to put it mildly), but I’m tired of people who get triggered by any question about climate change data. Information is power y’all!
You might wanna do some research into why ice ages and interglacial periods happened.
Spoiler alert: it’s the composition of the air.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/#:~:text=These ice ages are triggered,age than it is today.
Nature doesn’t do shit this funny.
So we basically understand “weather” for roughly 8ppm of earth’s life. That said, we can infer much amount about climate (not weather, climate) from much older archeological and even paleontological evidence.