Dude, come on. You're straw manning. That's not what's being said.
The acreage IS reduced BUT that doesn't contradict the view that the climate is changing and that the change is caused, at least in part, by human activity.
If you look at the article you'll note that acreage in itself is not a very useful metric, it's more complicated than that. Climate change is causing more of some types of fires and less of others.
And sure, the press focus on the former and I agree they dwell on the catastrophe porn, but that doesn't mean the underlying point - that the climate is changing and that's a bad thing - is wrong.
Even if that's true - it probably is true, they can't even predict the weather next week, let alone in 50 years - we're talking about things which are actually happening now.
Can you elaborate on this? I mean, first link I found, admittedly, but I found a few articles claiming things like this:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme...-last-20-years
I suspect it's different "fuckers" who were talking about the oil running out than the ones who are talking about climate change. But, again, the climate changing is an observable fact. Oil running out...well obviously that's going to happen at some point. Just because it will happen later than was predicted - which of course can happen if new reserves are found - doesn't change the fact that there's clearly not an infinite amount of it so at some point it will surely run out. Which I'd suggest is something we should be preparing ourselves for.
It's not about whether I can wrap my head around it, it's just that's not what climate scientists are saying. They could be wrong of course, but I'm not an expert in this. Nor, I would suggest, are you.
The error you make on a lot of topics is that you seem to only be able to think in extremes. I don't want to dwell on Wenger again [insert reply about how yes I do here], but it was a good example. It didn't seem possible for you to believe that Wenger was still a basically good manager who had lost his edge and his methods, once revolutionary, were actually now not fit for purpose. Anything ahead of its time ceases to be so given enough time passing if not updated. No, to you he had to suddenly be the worst manager in football. And anyone (mostly me) who thought different clearly wanted him to be our manager for ever and ever and thought he could do no wrong. Only one extreme or the other seemed possible to you. No nuance. No shades of grey.
You're doing the same here. The thought that the media dwell on the extremes is a valid one. They focus on the wild fires, on the extremes of predictions in any reports.
Rather than concluding that there is a real situation, but the media exaggerate it and focus on the most extreme predictions of doom, you have to believe that the whole thing is a fraud.
The climate has changed since I was a kid. I don't need graphs to tell me that, I just remember how cold it was when I was young.
Whether we can do anything about it - as in whether there's really the political will to do enough to change it - probably not.
Originally Posted by Letters
Reply With Quote
