In terms of the issue, the issue of global warming is an absolutely scientific problem. It concerns, and on this I think there are no doubts, thermodynamics of the planet Earth, more or less connected with that of the sun. This means that any plan to control global warming makes sense only if it takes into account the scientific discussion. P >
And so far my position: whatever the answer (by the drop in CO2 emissions until the next predictable crisis, that of CH4, ie, methane), it must be produced by “cold numbers” of “science senz ‘soul”. Because if we say to scientists who so far have dealt with what they have not understood anything, then we are in the situation of the monkey playing with a grenade.
But here comes a kind of annoyance that I’m starting to try, no much against Greta, who has certainly brought the issue to the fore, but against his following, or his fans. Which are taking advantage of it to put their private interest, pushing for solutions that are not solutions, and to make matters worse the situation worse than CO2.
Come to order. First printing. Dear gentlemen, do not work that way. First, it is not true that 97% of scientists agree. For the simple reason that science does not work for a show of hands. It does not change a damn thing if all scientists think one thing and one only thinks otherwise: if ‘ one has evidence and replicable experiments, he wins. To the science of democracy give zero.
97% is not 97% but 97% of the scientists of the publications in which you publish the evidence: facts, figures, measures. Saying that 97% of scientists first push the deniers to hire scientists deniers (and I do not deceive, in the academic world there are fine sold ready to do anything to make a career), but you’re saying false. it is 97% of the evidence, not the 97% of the scientists. One reason you should ask what would happen if all the evidence were produced by a single, prolific scientist. As you see, scientists have no use: you count the evidence contained in the publications.
Second, the climate and the weather are two different things. You are very good to remind us when winter comes cold weather, and the deniers say “but how come it’s cold if there is global warming.” True. But then summer peaks are stored in the same chapter. If the climate and the weather are two different things, always have. Or they never are. You decide. But if we now say that the hot spike proves global warming as evidence in favor, then I will peck the deniers who speak of cold winter peak as evidence to the contrary.
This way to treat ‘ argument is stupid and counterproductive, because in the end boils down to the usual crowd of “pros” and “cons”. But global warming is a problem of applied thermodynamics, not the girls who wallow in city fountains.
Another point: there will be no total extinction in the next ten years. The models that they say are considered so extreme that the calculated probabilities are small. Second, since the CO2 disappears instantly the loop when we cease to produce it, and puts us over 10 years to disappear, if we had only ten years of time to save us from extinction, well … game over. But, as I said because there are no signs of decline in global population or worsening of life expectancy on a global scale, it is unlikely one can predict the extinction of the human race. Maybe it is going to happen, but we can not really predict. The models predict that in 10 years are considered extreme and unlikely.
What happens propinano the history of extinction in 10 years? What happened to those who had predicted the end of the world in 2012. After 2012, nobody fucks them. And pulling out the lie of extinction in 10 years, all you get is to put you in this situation. Since it will be necessary to work for more than 10 years to this problem, see the problem buried with laughter just because you like to fill the front pages it does not seem wise . Also because if you do not see the human population decreased dramatically (by number or life expectancy) already within five years, the deniers will give the trumpets.
In addition to the press, there are several Bausch industrialotti who are jumping on the bandwagon of Greta, beginning to sell unnecessary things if not harmful. The first example is this: