Even if it wasn’t human made, if we can do something about it and help ourselves out of it as a result, why shouldn’t we? It’s crazy that this is even an argument.
Yep, just like my body takes care of itself with fever and such when something multiplies too much and dumps its waste in me. Burn it out and flush it out, that’s just “nature taking care of itself.”
William Jennings Bryant represented a case back in the 20s or 30s about the potential harm of anthropogenic global warming (now called climate change to try to meet science deniers in places getting cold due to changes in currents and jetstreams where they are). The science was known in the late 1800s. The exact science was known in the 1950s. The failure to act on that information is thanks in large part to corruption and greed. Anytime you hear “the science isn’t out yet” or “they didn’t use the narrow definition of the scientific method I learned in middle school in Nebraska involving a very specific structure of lab based experiment so climate science isn’t real science” you are hearing the output of nearly 80 years of not wanting to do anything about it because it would put this quarters profits at risk
And nuclear power was seemingly the future, the oil companies bear the vast majority of the blame but Chernobyl certainly didn’t help our current situation.
![[OC] Unexpected ally 🤷](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/dc47f868-1756-4022-9331-ad57253d958f.webp){kind=link}
Or that it’s not man made.
Even if it wasn’t human made, if we can do something about it and help ourselves out of it as a result, why shouldn’t we? It’s crazy that this is even an argument.
Because also “nature will take care of itself.”
Yep, just like my body takes care of itself with fever and such when something multiplies too much and dumps its waste in me. Burn it out and flush it out, that’s just “nature taking care of itself.”
deleted by creator
I had to refute this argument… IRL… it was a sad day… just tell them the person who launched this nonsense has oil and coal industry ties
EDIT: more on the subject, links to actual study inside the article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/to-fight-climate-misinformation-point-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/
I thought the comment you were replying to was sarcastic… but you never know.
That’s what I figured, but now you’re making me doubt… ugh stupid timeline
I was just sharing a strategy that sometimes works with this kind of dumb argument.
William Jennings Bryant represented a case back in the 20s or 30s about the potential harm of anthropogenic global warming (now called climate change to try to meet science deniers in places getting cold due to changes in currents and jetstreams where they are). The science was known in the late 1800s. The exact science was known in the 1950s. The failure to act on that information is thanks in large part to corruption and greed. Anytime you hear “the science isn’t out yet” or “they didn’t use the narrow definition of the scientific method I learned in middle school in Nebraska involving a very specific structure of lab based experiment so climate science isn’t real science” you are hearing the output of nearly 80 years of not wanting to do anything about it because it would put this quarters profits at risk
In the 1950’s at least they could tell themselves their kids had time to fix it.
And nuclear power was seemingly the future, the oil companies bear the vast majority of the blame but Chernobyl certainly didn’t help our current situation.