Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzjhdl wrote

Reply to comment by YawnTractor_1756 in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

Farther down, the article quotes the scientists as saying it’s “uncertain” and “slow” on the list of potential tipping points:

“The new study provides support for the Congo peatlands being vulnerable to climate drying,” said Prof Tim Lenton, at the University of Exeter and part of the team that undertook the September analysis. “For now, I would keep the Congo peatland and rainforest on the ‘uncertain’ and ‘slow’ list of potential tipping elements in the climate system.”

6

YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzkjnl wrote

Wow... the article is even less scientifically useful than I initially thought.

−4

OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzmoaz wrote

The purpose of the article is political. The COP27 meeting is about to start, and is located this year in Africa and devoted to the theme that developed countries should provide assistance to developing countries to assist with climate change, on the theory that they are primarily responsible for climate change. So an article about destruction of Congo peatlands appears now to fit that theme.

Mind you, I’m not begrudging them the example. This is how politics works and this arguably is an example of that theme. But in this case, it’s serving a political purpose, not a scientific purpose.

5

YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2ue74 wrote

Politicians are actually smarter than an average redditor, and realize that solid politics should be based on science, because that is what science is for. Science is a proven framework to figure out solid knowledge about something that allows to make conclusions and decisions.

Political article that is not backed by science in favor of climate change is no better than political article that is not backed by science against climate change. For the sake of making solid decisions they are the same.

And I'm leaving alone the fact that even if the claim is right, even if what article claims is correct, then the article did not explain in the slightest how exactly the money are going to help.

A hollow piece of political propaganda, that can only be cheered by mindless activists who only care about amplifying their message with any means, no matter how questionable they are.

1