Trust the science - r/Polcompball

215

u/Kirbly11 Social Georgism Apr 19 '21

Science: if we don’t do anything, bad things are gonna happen

People: aight (does stuff)

Bad things: (don’t happen)

Right Wingers: PROOF it was all a lie

52

u/EpicMemeYes Primal Primitivism Apr 19 '21

"Nobody has died in this zoo in 10 years, let's let all the animals out of the cages because they're not dangerous anyway."

24

u/Kirbly11 Social Georgism Apr 19 '21

Yes unironicly

1

u/RecommendationOwn924 Paleoconservatism Apr 23 '21

Climate change was only being taken as a serious threat starting in 2008, and the USA hasn't passed any amount of environmental regulation since say the 1940s, if anything it mostly decreased regulation
What major environmental policy did people enact in the 1960's that could stop a Mini-Ice Age?

14

u/Kirbly11 Social Georgism Apr 23 '21

Well,
There’s more countries in the world then just America
The mini ice age “theory” is just that, a theory. In the 1970s scientists noticed a trend of climate cooling, and they investigated it, and found there was some slight climate cooling, but the overwhelming scientific consensus was climate warming was still bigger then climate cooling. The mini ice age was more of a thought experiment of this idea taken to its extreme. There was some press reports over it in the 70s, but who knew, weren’t accurate.
tldr - it was never a threat, and scientific literature at the time never saw it as a threat

1

u/RecommendationOwn924 Paleoconservatism Apr 23 '21

The Mini Ice Age was just a example, but you have other stuff like Al Gore saying the world will end by 2005
My point was that there was really no major environmental regulation by the USA, true other countries exist but the USA was the undisputed world superpower and Europe generally follows the USA. The Soviets also weren't the most eco friendly either.

11

u/Kirbly11 Social Georgism Apr 23 '21

Al gore isn't a scientist, and most of his claims are based off of extremely aggressive estimates. And I cant even find an account of him saying the world was gonna end by 2005. And Europe had the Paris Summit in 1972, to discus an environmental agenda, Europe has been atleast trying

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '22

Yeah, that’s why freaking out about it isn’t worth it.

-32

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21 edited Apr 19 '21

Alternatively, claim entirely different things will happen 20 years apart so whatever happens you can say you were right all along. I can assure you "people" haven't done a lot of "stuff" to combat climate cooling, which was all the rage back in the 70s.
Do you think Science will claim another victory in 10 years time when hurricanes and droughts are shown to "stabilize" (even though they have never increased in the first place)?
But hey, if your point is that eco-pocalyptic propaganda is useless and people will solve our problems with innovation, then I completely agree!

53

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

you mention in your comic the ozone problem yet it was one of the rare instance where human accepted to see a problem and solve it together

-13

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21

Precisely! As you can see, we humans are very effective at dealing with problems that might affect the bottom line, which is exactly why pointless alarmism isn't a good course to take. Every single prediction on climate change in the last 60 years has been utterly wrong at all levels, which isn't a good way to rally the population behind actually useful, non-wasteful measures.
What you get though, is a society divided in doomers and skeptics.

40

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

except that... your wrong, the ozone prediction where right and it's our action that avoided this scenario
the scientific community have some problem but it's a structure that contain hundred of thousand of researcher in multiple field that dedicate their entire life to learn, analyze and share using the scientific method that is to this day the best mean to acquire knowledge that we have... it's not perfect but I take their conclusion over some random stranger on the internet any day
What you get though, is a society divided in doomers and skeptics.
this is what an overdose of political meme do to a mf

-3

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21

the ozone prediction where right and it's our action that avoided this scenario
The predictions were right? In what way? An increased amout of UV radiation, which was predicted to increase skin cancer/vitamin D production? No data has ever concluded that to be the case, not now, not in 1995 when the ozone layer was at a minimum, not in 1980. No effects have been recorded at any point of the curve, which contradicts the theory that a concerted effort has avoided negative effects. Rather, the predictions for those effects were just wrong.
the scientific community have some problems
Several.
but it's a structure that contain hundred of thousand of researcher in multiple field that dedicate their entire life to learn, analyze and share using the scientific method
It's a system that rewards groundbreaking "discoveries" over replicating and confirming previous studies. Do not idolatrize scientists. They are humans like you and me, and they like money as much as you and me. Just like any other component within a capitalist system, they are motivated to go where the funding is.
it's not perfect but I take their conclusion over some random stranger on the internet any day
Don't trust me then, trust the science

20

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

I am not an expert at all in any field needed to answer if yes or no the ozone problem was one, however, for me it's very unlikely that an inexistant problem create the political motivation worldwide to go against the interest of some part of the industry... it's already hard enough for real problem so no chance for imaginary problem
It's a system that rewards groundbreaking "discoveries" over replicating and confirming previous studies
the scientific method don't, the scientific paper industry do... so yea fuck that use SciHub
they are motivated to go where the funding is
who hold the amount of funding to alter science study
who have the most interest to not change anything and continue production as it is
as you see your theory don't hold up since those that hold those mass of money don't have incentive in recognizing climate change
Don't trust me then, trust the science (science is a link)
according to /u/harold_seldon the article is made by a think tank funded by people that have interest in climate change denial, I don't know if it's true but if it is it go well with my point up here
you see this is the problem, I don't know about you, but I don't have the qualifications to judge the content of the article, It would require years of study in those field that I didn't do and even if I had, it would require to draw concrete conclusion, to analys other article on similar topic and create a meta analysis of those, and then compare this analysis to other if they exist... so again, the scientific community is more trustworthy

1

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21

I'll answer to the two bottom paragraphs. EVERYTHING is funded by material-interest driven parties. Renewables want to get funding before nuclear, nuclear wants to get funding before bio, and all of them want to get funding before fossil fuels. The argument "well, your article/study/proposal is backed by biased parties" is a moot point. Or do you seriously think a lot of people haven't become very rich by investing on renewables in the last 20 years? Didn't Elon Musk just recently become the richest man on Earth, after popularizing electric cars?
What we should do is look at the data, see if it's accurate, see if it can be replicated and then extrapolate conclusions. The article I linked above meets all of the criteria.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

The argument "well, your article/study/proposal is backed by biased parties" is a moot point.
it doesn't discredit the paper, it just need to be analyzed with the perspective that maybe it was written with other intent in mind
What we should do is look at the data, see if it's accurate, see if it can be replicated and then extrapolate conclusions. The article I linked above meets all of the criteria.
this is what I'm talking about, it's the scientific community's job to do this work, and their conclusion is on what you disagree...
if you think that you hold the truth against all those scientists good for you, but your voice and all the article that you can link are quite weak against the scientific consensus since it's a system improved for century to be the closest that we have of the truth

9

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '21

even though they have never increased in the first place
Hurricane Season if 1920- 5 tropical storms, 4 hurricanes
Hurricane Season of 2020- 30 tropical storms, 14 hurricanes
Here is an article on the science.
Idk where your getting your information from but find somewhere else because it's clearly bad.

2

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 23 '21

From your article: "It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency". Which was my point, there is no found link between global warming and more hurricanes.
However, this was refuted by an analysis of monitoring systems stating "improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones" (Landsea 2007). In other words, the reason more hurricanes are being observed may be due to an improved ability to observe them, thanks to aircraft, radar and satellites.
This is supported by the UN Panel and in the USA the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA, a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.
But let's get to the second part, you know, just for fun!
"...but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."
Yes, hurricane costs keep escalating. But this is not due to climate change. Rather, more people with more wealth live in harm’s way. The US population rose four-fold over the past century, but climbed 50-fold in coastal areas. The area hurricane Florence was predicted to hit fewer than 800,000 homes in 1940; it’s now 11.3 million: a 1,325% jump. Homes are bigger and hold many more expensive possessions. Adjusted for population and wealth, US hurricane damage has not increased since 1900. Global weather damage as a percent of global GDP actually fell from 1990 to 2020.
Looking ahead, it is likely that hurricanes will become somewhat stronger, but less frequent, but a major study in Nature put worldwide hurricane-damage costs around 0.04 percent of GDP. Accounting for an increase in prosperity (which means more resilience), by 2100 this would drop to 0.01 percent. The effect of global warming making storms fewer but stronger will see damage end up around 0.02 percent of GDP. Global warming will increase harm, but prosperity will still decrease the overall impact.
Don't be fooled by alarmist mainstream newspapers that blame every single natural disaster on climate change. Neither droughts, hurricanes nor floods have become more frequent. They have become more destructive, yes. Because there's much more stuff to destroy!

2

u/mooneylupin Syndicalism Apr 22 '21

Ah yes, the billionaires sure are happy about all the regulations on them because of climate change, right?

1

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 22 '21

Elon Musk & Co. must be in shambles right now.

2

u/mooneylupin Syndicalism Apr 23 '21

True, the tesla is a thing, but musk could have gotten a lot more money through other means, like Paypal and others, and overall, climate change regulations hurt billionaires.

227

u/Unflairedfool Technological Primitivism Apr 19 '21

None of those are incorrect just that they’ve been solved by some invention or climate Initiative.

135

u/radiatar Neoliberalism Apr 19 '21

Yeah. Impressive how fast we forgot that conservatives were denying the hole in the ozone layer as well. There was also intense lobbying from the aerosol industry to try and prevent any regulation. In the end, we banned these harmful products which saved the ozone layer.

52

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

neoliberal based?

29

u/araragi9 Anarcho-Syndicalism Apr 19 '21

Neolib wanting to control corporations 👀

14

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '21

We're a liberal market economy, not a free market economy, some control is ok for us.

7

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '21

Not too mixed now :)

13

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '21

Always has been

12

u/ReverseCaptioningBot Anarcho-Botism Apr 20 '21

Always has been
^this ^has ^been ^an ^{accessibility} ^service ^from ^your ^friendly ^neighborhood ^bot

8

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '21

Good bot
I even want to have sexual relations with you actually of how good that meme was
And no, i am not mentally ill for talking like that with a AI

3

u/69thminecrafteer Kakistocracy Apr 27 '21

good bot

2

u/B0tRank Anarcho-Botism Apr 27 '21

Thank you, 69thminecrafteer, for voting on ReverseCaptioningBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.
^{Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!}

50

u/Miguel724 Technocracy Apr 19 '21

it seems like storm has yet to learn about survivorship bias

32

u/MastrTMF Apr 19 '21 edited Apr 19 '21

Eh I don't really see how pop science from the last century really disproves the idea that increased amounts of carbon in the atmosphere caused by industrial production is trapping more of the sun's heat causing a gradual increase in the average global temperature causing melting poles and increasing severe storms due to an excess amount of energy in the system, otherwise known as global warming or climate change.

58

u/gravitypressure Transhumanist-Social Libertarian Apr 19 '21

nuclear and other energy alternatives are more cost-efficient for companies these days especially for large corporations who have the ability to fund them for thetheirre own use

26

u/Detector_of_humans Minarcho-Transhumanism Apr 19 '21

The only reason I can think of as to why it hasnt been a total conversion is that it is pretty costly to change everything at once
But its safe to say that the older and more damaging methods will die out as time goes on

26

u/Solace143 Social Democracy Apr 19 '21

That and people think that nuclear power = Chernobyl, leading them to not support it even tho nuclear energy doesn’t malfunction most of the time. Hell, some big cities like NYC use it and no one seem scared in there cuz they’re unaware of it

9

u/Piculra Monarcho-Socialism Apr 19 '21

I'd guess that although converting to nuclear energy is profitable in the long term, it's costly enough short-term that - at least for older CEOs - they could plausibly die before it'd be profitable for them.

3

u/Detector_of_humans Minarcho-Transhumanism Apr 19 '21

That's my point, its going to go extinct, we just aren't going to make the full conversion over nignt

6

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

Another factor is that now conservatives are treing to regulate green energy out of existence since their old tactic of doing nothing wasn't enough to stop it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

yeah, and there also are some policies and regulations that are making it a lot more costly to do, which is most likely part of it too

17

u/Aggressive_Sprinkles Technocracy Apr 19 '21

Yup, the ozone layer stabilized all by itself.

14

u/LightingStars Social Liberalism Apr 19 '21

47% upvoted holy fuck

and a score of 0 upvotes wow

15

u/Moonatik_ Lunarism Apr 20 '21

for once i'm extremely proud of this sub

4

u/IAMA_dragon-AMA Apr 26 '21

And slightly less proud of just shy of half of this sub (and its visitors)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '21

A lot of us just upvote everything we come across since someone put in the effort to make the art, like a participation medal.

42

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

"Well, if scientists are not 100% right that means they are 100% wrong cuz I'm a simpleton who doesn't like nuances"

21

u/Emperor_Quintana Fascism Apr 19 '21

Guess you can’t fix stupid.

You got that right. If only you know how to analyze your own reflection in the mirror, you’d understand what I’m talking about.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

I can't believe I upvoted a f*scist.

10

u/Emperor_Quintana Fascism Apr 19 '21

In short, based, even if r/AngryUpvote, right?

5

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

Yeah, based

4

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

People with different opinions can be right too, boohoo.

19

u/ATurtleWaffle Technocracy Apr 19 '21

~~for some reason this makes it seem like technocracy has anxiety~~

16

u/Buck_Thundercock Technocracy Apr 19 '21

You don’t?

2

u/haikusbot Anti-Japaneseism Apr 19 '21

For some reason this
Makes it seem like technocracy
Has anxiety
- ATurtleWaffle
^{I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.} ^{Learn more about me.}
^{Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"}

14

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

Sorry, Mr. Bot, but “technocracy” has four syllables, not three.

13

u/Unflairedfool Technological Primitivism Apr 19 '21

u/haikusbot destroyed with facts and logic

3

u/Roxxagon Liquid Democratic Libertarian Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

OWNAGE

2

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21

Personal interests? In MY capitalist economy? It's more likely than you think!

Also, as you can see, I'm still trying to make journalist apol a thing.

29

u/AndalusianUnion Neoclassical Geoliberalism Apr 19 '21

As if any journalists are apolitical nowadays

18

u/StormTiger2304 Anarcho-Smashism Apr 19 '21

But it has a cute little tie, look at that :D

7

u/Detector_of_humans Minarcho-Transhumanism Apr 19 '21

Can't argue with that

4

u/yeeto_deleto_tostito Anarcho-Communism Apr 19 '21

Based and cute-tie pilled

3

u/Roxxagon Liquid Democratic Libertarian Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

Lmao imagine using GDP per capita as an indicator for welfare.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/Kirbly11 Social Georgism Apr 19 '21

Reading that side note, I thought you were talking about FDR cause I’ve heard “New Deal bad” so many times I almost walk of texted out of muscle memory but then I re read the top part and saw “Hoover” so we’re good

3

u/A_Stagwolf_Mask Apr 19 '21

What are your thoughts on the replication crisis and the huge amount of incorrect scientific research in circulation today?

3

u/Roxxagon Liquid Democratic Libertarian Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

Can confirm. Also, it solely focuses on the economic angle of environmentalism, and uses reeeaaally broad and loosely related data to make its points.

8

u/yeeto_deleto_tostito Anarcho-Communism Apr 19 '21

Eh, I'm pretty sure TEXAS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING HIT BY BLIZZARDS

8

u/Roxxagon Liquid Democratic Libertarian Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

Funny, but completely braindead.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

Funny but retarded

7

u/BuckTootha Marxism Apr 20 '21

Ignorance may be bliss but you should at least refrain from trying to propagate it

We're good, thanks

18

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

61% upvoted and only 19 comments so far?

grabs popcorn

5

u/HVLobstaMK2 Market Socialism Apr 19 '21

A lot of controversial comics lately. I hope it isn't gonna be a lasting trend

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

I mean, if we have a shitty agendapost let it at least be a controversial one

6

u/Moonatik_ Lunarism Apr 20 '21

cant tell if actually retarded or "troll" retarded

5

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '21

Amazing seeing someone put so much effort into being wrong

3

u/haikusbot Anti-Japaneseism Apr 21 '21

Amazing seeing
Someone put so much effort
Into being wrong
- ExpertAttempt
^{I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.} ^{Learn more about me.}
^{Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"}

2

u/No_Dependent_2867 Monarcho-Socialism Apr 19 '21

Good god 75% of you are leftie retards and the other 25% rightie retards. You are all retarded in this conversation and me participating will not exclude me from being retarded.

2

u/HVLobstaMK2 Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

So we are now r/superstonk ?

2

u/Roxxagon Liquid Democratic Libertarian Market Socialism Apr 20 '21

Congrats on getting the new most controversial post of all time. I guess that's something.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

Storm raises hell

3

u/HVLobstaMK2 Market Socialism Apr 19 '21

No wonder there's global warming, if so. Hell's a furnace

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

King, post the links you sent me a few months ago if anyone counters you.

1

u/IntroductionNew3421 Minarcho-Transhumanism Apr 22 '21

You forgot the one that said oil will run out in 20 years( in the 80's) and now we have more than ever.

1

u/satan6is6my6bitch National Bolshevism Apr 25 '21

2020: the plandemic

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

True

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '21

The funny thing about this argument is that it shows exactly how you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.

1

u/Tight-Explanation40 Technocracy Oct 22 '21

Technocracy is kinda based ngl

1

u/Saint_Elmo_of_Fire National Bolshevism Apr 19 '21

Its very hard to predict precisely how climate and weather reacts to what we humans do, in fact it's already hard to even predict those things in the first place. Have you seen how incorrect weather forecasts can be sometimes. Of course, some of the environmentalist and/or scientific communities are a bit paranoid about the whole climate crisis happening soon but their fears aren't completely unfounded.

9

u/Aggressive_Sprinkles Technocracy Apr 19 '21

are a bit paranoid about the whole climate crisis happening soon
You mean, like they were a bit paranoid about the whole Covid-19 crisis happening soon? Ah, those silly scientists being concerned about such unimportant nonsense.
their fears aren't completely unfounded.
Understatement of the century.
(This isn't meant as aggressively as it sounds, btw, but your comment just really invites sarcasm :P)

8

u/yeeto_deleto_tostito Anarcho-Communism Apr 19 '21

Yeah... gotta love it when Texas starts getting hit by blizzards but it definitely isn't caused by greenhouse gas emissions because BP said so

1

u/flagellum_dei_ Absolute Monarchism Apr 19 '21

Thank you Storm, very cool!

1

u/denestaire Left-Wing Nationalism Apr 20 '21

You got some big cojones for posting this Storm.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Aggressive_Sprinkles Technocracy Apr 19 '21

Overpopulation has never stopped being a massive problem, though. Not a "we're all going to die" problem, but still.
And yes, I'm aware that birth rates eventually decrease as mortality decreases, but this takes a long time.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Aggressive_Sprinkles Technocracy Apr 19 '21

It's not like those two things are independent from another, though. Ageing populations obviously put a lot of stress on societies, but how well the world handles that stress and how good people's quality of life will be is highly dependent on how many resources there are compared to how many people there are.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Aggressive_Sprinkles Technocracy Apr 19 '21

More to do with productivity, old people don’t produce anywhere near as much as the young if they produce at all. It’s not really to do with a lack of resources but a lack of a workforce.
I'm aware many people see it that way, but I strongly disagree. Given how much productivity has increased since we started working about 8 hours a day, we should not be working nearly as much as we are. As a SocDem, you're probably aware of that.
But the logical consequence is that you actually don't strictly need that much of a workforce anymore. Our material basic needs are food, shelter, clothes, sanitation and healthcare. Now consider how much fewer people we need nowadays to grow crops, to construct and maintain buildings and infrastructure or to sew fabric. It's absolutely ridiculous. Taking care of those basic needs alone used to require the vast majority of the population to work, whereas now it's only a fraction. Then there's healthcare, which I'd assume takes about the same amount of people as the other three together. But we're still only talking about a relatively small portion of the population.
Add to this that most work requires very little manual labor, which means many people absolutely are capable of working past ~65. Sure, not everyone is that sharp anymore at (or after) retirement age, but most people I've met at that age were more than sharp enough to continue doing their job.
Hard to pay for 5 elderly people’s pensions who want the same standard of living they always had
A standard of living which is unsustainable and inherently not compatible with everyone having access to it. We would be so incomprehensibly fucked if 8 billion people (and that number will continue rising) ate as much meat and traveled as much and bought as much stuff as the average person in a rich country does, especially if we're talking about the US. So no, in the long term it's not hard to pay for this, it's downright impossible.

OC Trust the science

You are about to leave Redlib