Re:Trees Could Change the Climate More Than Scientists Thought
by petre on Monday October 15, 2018 @01:10AM
(#18217506)
Negligence or ill intent. Producing a study that proves the narrative will secure future funding for further climate change studies.
Perhaps we could plant Azolla in some big enclosed water bodies like the Black Sea?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Re:Trees Could Change the Climate More Than Scientists Thought
by pvaldes on Monday October 15, 2018 @05:05AM
(#18218352)
Azolla is a freshwater fern. Wouldn't growth in saltwater.
Azolla uses only the upper two cm of the water but takes all the light and 'kills' the 99,9999% of the water volume for other purposes. Would be like painting a building with a glowing paint and then stop people to enter and use the whole building so they do not damage the paint layer.
If we block the light we are excluding the effect of 5m of algae for example, killing the fishes that need this algae as larvae and also messing with the oxigen interchange in the water. Is not the perfect solution that we need
Um. Well. I'm glad you said that. It's not any more stupid than ignoring data sources and producing model after model that only aimed to confirmed the prevailing narrative. "See we were right" but failing to list the caveats - as ALL data has - is negligence. With that said, I'm not going to bother with your second paragraph. It's absurd.
Science's #1 job is to ask "What did we miss?" Failure to intentionally not do so - so that hard becomes easy, my peers remain esteemed, my career nudges upward - isn't only stupid, it's lazy and actually violates the definition of Science. You just can't act like a hobbyist and demand the respect of a scientist. That's unreasonable, at best.
Yes. I think it's perfectly fine not to trust someone who deceived me, is lazy and is unapologetic on both accounts. As good Science already tells us: Trust is earned.