#14 in Arctic & Antarctica history books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic
Sentiment score: 0
Reddit mentions: 3
We found 3 Reddit mentions of A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic. Here are the top ones.
or
- Gateron clear is linear switches,it's not as Cherry clear which is tactile switches
- Gateron MX switches can be replaced Cherry mx switches on mechanical keyboard,it's more cost-effective
- It can support both normal RGB and underglow SMD
Features:
Specs:
| Release date | August 2017 |
I just read A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic by Peter Wadhams (Cambridge Professor). He thinks we are past the tipping point and need to develop a way of pulling co2 out of the atmosphere.
Peter Wadhams said exactly the same thing two years ago in A Farewell to Ice, but nobody sees any reason to listen to a guy who's spent much of the last thirty years in submarines looking at arctic ice.
> IPCC can’t answer the question that I asked at the beginning of this chapter, because their models can’t even explain where we are today, let alone where we are going
...ehh, ok. But IPCC isn't a scientific organization. They don't perform climate research. They collate research done by actual researchers, and look at trends. If there are a thousand research papers from climate scientists and 100 of them say that climate change is fake and 100 of them say that we're all going to melt to death and 800 of them say that ok this is a legitimate concern but it's probably going to be ok so long as we're not stupid, IPCC looks at that and reports that maybe we're all going to melt to death, but probably not, probably things will be basically ok so long as we're not stupid about it.
If somebody says they think IPCC is wrong, what that means is that they think the majority of climate scientists are wrong. Which yes, appears to be exactly what this guy is saying:
>There will be a terrible price to pay if a false ‘consensus’ leads us to ignore the rapid changes which are occurring, and their implications.
So this guy disagrees with the scientific consensus. Ok, that's fine. Science is not a democracy. Just because most scientists think something doesn't mean it's right. If you want to ignore the scientific consensus and examine the data, ok that's a conversation we can have.
Is that the conversation you want to have?
Or are you simply offering this one random guy who disagrees, and saying that we should believe him instead? Why? Why should I believe him? Why is he right? Why do you believe him? What reason can you give me to believe this guy over the 800 other climate scientists who disagree with him?
Because I can't help but notice that this guy is selling a book. You are quoting a piece of for-profit literature. You yourself linked it on Amazon.
Hey, maybe he's right.
But what reason can you give me to believe the guy who makes money off of you being scared enough to buy his book over the majority of climate scientists publishing in research journals?
Do you see where I'm coming from?