Paraphrasing: Why do so many people in a science / engineering / IT tech focused community question / challenge / reject something I personally ernestly believe in?
Mind. Blown. You trolling but just forgot to logout?
I never intended to provide a fix for the problem. Although, generally speaking, the first step to fixing a problem is to correctly diagnose/attribute causes.
Rushing off and blaming every adverse environmental outcome on climate change is in itself a religious belief system.
All sorts of stressors on environment such as polluation from agricultural/catchment runoff. Land surface temp increase of around 0.7c over last 60 years or so + recent El Nino, may or many not be a contributor but no shortage of people falling over each other to lay blame principally at the feet of AGW
Step 1: try to acquire content via one of my PAYG preferred streaming services legally
Step 2 : torrent (or wait for physical distribution and borrow the discs off someone else)
I don't mind paying for content and 90% of content I do consume is paid for. I don't even mind too much if rights holders try and charge me significantly more than what they charge other regions as long as it is accessible and the price points are reasonable. What fkn shits me is having to deal with and enrich elusive rights digital arbitragers although they provide little value add in the supply chain. Also tracking down an old film that is 20+ years old, finding it is digitally accessible elsewhere but not where I live. I feel no ethical qualms about opening torrent under those circumstances.
Music is rarely geolocked. Why is film/TV treated differently?
As much as I hate rewarding lazinness. Plenty of papers out there that argue TCR is well south of 2deg per doubling of CO2: a position that surely will get you labelled as a filthy denier. What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?. Be careful handling subversive materials not sanctioned by your tribal elders...
Nice strawman. Can always count on climate to bring a spectacular and interminable parade of logical fallacies
BS science is BS.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Maybe because it is actually fucking informative? A comprehensive list of things in media attributed to global warming is: information. Just because the collators clear intent is to diffuse/mock climate alarmism in the media doesn't change the accuracy of the information captured.
At least as far as science media reporting is concerned, climate change is essentially a modern variant of God of the Gaps : oh noes some sort of weather/climatic environmental event occurred that has caused adverse human and/or environmental calamity, find someone fast who is willing to lay blame on it at the feet of climate change so can we can some quick copy on that action.
Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.