There's a dirty fashion in climate science to include political activism or call to action in their papers. Especially if they've found something that shows good news about climate change. They qualify it with "... but we must all make an effort to reduce fossil fuel use".
I used to teach science and would tell students not to give life advice to the reader, because that's what we were supposed to teach them. But then all these climate change papers started doing just that. It's equivalent of ancient mathematicians saying "glory to the king" in their work and reveals that the authors are bound by a conflict of interest and can't be expected to do honest work.
I recently read one about childhood safety, and they said that following the government's safety rules was important, while also defining their own idea of what kinds of safety are valuable or harmful. If the government already knows better than you, why are you even researching this? It's obviously just some effort to pressure people into not making their own dangerous decisions. But again, that's not science, that's activism and non-objective.
Nothing wrong with wanting it, but a research paper is not the place to express personal opinions on how other people should behave. It's not a result they got from their own work, just rhetoric they know they're supposed to repeat, perhaps for safety of their careers, or perhaps because they unethically want to use their platform for activism.
I've accepted that we are going to destroy ourselves and there is essentially nothing to be done at this point, but isn't that generally considered a bad thing? I'm surprised that endeavoring to continue the existence of humanity is so controversial.
Yes, I never really got the appeal myself, but I'm told that people do in fact place great value on children which is why I'm so surprised at their willingness to destroy the planet.
6 degrees Celsius will basically render the Earth inhospitable for human occupation, but perhaps with some remnants remaining near the poles. Some of the latest work from James Hansen (whose previous work has been quite prescient) is suggesting that 10 degrees is likely. I apologize for my hyperbole.
6 deg of what? fahrenheit, celsiius? And what, increase or decrease? Inaccurate alarmists are even wrose. Please dont even reply, I couldnt care less about your opinions.
I used to teach science and would tell students not to give life advice to the reader, because that's what we were supposed to teach them. But then all these climate change papers started doing just that. It's equivalent of ancient mathematicians saying "glory to the king" in their work and reveals that the authors are bound by a conflict of interest and can't be expected to do honest work.
I recently read one about childhood safety, and they said that following the government's safety rules was important, while also defining their own idea of what kinds of safety are valuable or harmful. If the government already knows better than you, why are you even researching this? It's obviously just some effort to pressure people into not making their own dangerous decisions. But again, that's not science, that's activism and non-objective.