[flagged]

enragedcacti 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Call me crazy, but I think climate scientists can enumerate major carbon sources and sinks. Unfortunately your comment is so vague that I can't tell if you're referring to a specific thing some person said or if you're just imagining a guy to be mad at.

▲

panny 9 hours ago | parent [-]

>I think climate scientists can enumerate major carbon sources and sinks

Science has no idea where 2-3 gigatons of carbon go every year. That's a BIG number. And it is a big deal. And it has been missing for decades now. All the time you were calling someone a science denier, you've been completely unaware that you can't even account for all the major carbon sources/sinks.

https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio326/class/ecosyst/whrcmissc.ht...

https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/new-global-carbon-da...

▲

jandrewrogers 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Science has no idea where 2-3 gigatons of carbon go every year. That's a BIG number.

That's a big number and a small percentage. The latter is what matters.

▲

panny 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the same order of magnitude as all cars on the road. Not such a big deal huh?

Let me ask you this. Do you own a car? I don't. I take the train.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon...

Look at that, I'm the 1%. What are you doing personally about the climate? I bet you own an air conditioner too. I bet you don't carry 20-30 pounds of groceries a mile every two to three days, do you?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48543350

I bet you don't have a four year degree on the subject either, do you? When was the last time you purchased gasoline? For me it was over a year ago when I had to rent a car for one day.

Go ahead, call me a science denier. I know you want to. You can just absolve yourself of all your carbon footprint by being self righteous about it, can't you?

	▲	Supermancho 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Look at that, I'm the 1%. What are you doing personally about the climate? Virtue signaling has nothing to do with the discussion.

▲

hydrolox 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So instead of funding more research into a potentially important unknown, as you say, we should just.. not?

▲

STKFLT 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay, so climate scientists openly researching and refining their theories around an extremely complex topic (carbon's continually changing relationship to every biosphere on earth) is evidence of... malpractice, conspiracy?

FWIW I was aware of the biosphere as a carbon sink because I learned it in middle school 20 years ago. Thanks for giving me a reason to learn about the interesting and difficult challenges in determining where and through which process that sinking is occurring :)

▲

Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Science hasn't figured out how the entire planet works yet so we should do less science?

▲

Jtsummers 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That does seem to be their argument. Lots of trolls in this discussion, we don't need to feed them.

▲

Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the argument then?

	▲	Jtsummers 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think you read a "not" in my comment that wasn't there, I'm agreeing with you about what the person you responded to seemed to be arguing for (stop the science because it's not good enough). Which is, as Supermancho points out, nonsense.
	▲	Supermancho 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If science can't explain some part of how a system works, science cant make predictions about that system. It's nonsense.

▲

epistasis 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> cannot enumerate the major sources/sinks of carbon on the planet

What climate scientist can't do this? Are you talking about non-scientists calling people "science deniers"? Or are you denying that climate scientists have been able to do this, in which case yes you are literally a science-denier?

Nonetheless, you can't excuse harming the future of the entire nation because somebody had their feelings hurt. The stakes are bigger, here.

▲

jandrewrogers 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The vast majority of carbon sources and sinks can be attributed. Even the sinks are probably 80+% attributed at this point despite being more difficult to identify via remote sensing.