Bordeaux should be a climate change red flag for the wine industry(softwine.ai)
softwine.ai
Bordeaux should be a climate change red flag for the wine industry
https://www.softwine.ai/bordeaux-the-canary-in-the-cellar
26 comments
Is this article AI-generated? If so, I feel like my time has been abused, as it keeps restating the same points over and over.
The domain is softwine.ai, so I think it is
From their about us:
> is this an AI-generated site?
> Parts are, but not really. And I get it, AI is a controversial topic - so here's my disclaimer:
> First off - all written content on softwine is created by me. Some is aided by LLM technologies, but only with the highest level of skepticism, creative intent, and editing.
From their about us:
> is this an AI-generated site?
> Parts are, but not really. And I get it, AI is a controversial topic - so here's my disclaimer:
> First off - all written content on softwine is created by me. Some is aided by LLM technologies, but only with the highest level of skepticism, creative intent, and editing.
> Some is aided by LLM technologies, but only with the highest level of skepticism, creative intent, and editing.
I just watched Adam Savage on YT giving advice to youtubers. He said if you get bored editing a segment, but think your audience will appreciate it, you're wrong and you should cut it out.
I think the same is true for AI. If you think your audience will appreciate some AI rambling, but you don't, you're probably mistaken.
I just watched Adam Savage on YT giving advice to youtubers. He said if you get bored editing a segment, but think your audience will appreciate it, you're wrong and you should cut it out.
I think the same is true for AI. If you think your audience will appreciate some AI rambling, but you don't, you're probably mistaken.
The enshittification of online discussion and content starts with the same morons who thought it was a good idea to speak into a megaphone when they had nothing interesting to say to hear the sound of their own voice now being capable of doing so with an AI writing their uselessness to be spoken into the megaphone.
Kind of an even worse version of this comment I'm writing right now.
Kind of an even worse version of this comment I'm writing right now.
This article is not - unfortunately just the writing style of an amateur blogger who always paid more attention in university science than in writing courses haha
softwine.ai
Anyone else saw the title and thought that Bordeaux, the Wine front-end, made a comeback or something?
Just wait for spotted lanternflies to take hold, they will devastate grape crops.
Climate change propaganda is going extra hard in the last 6 months I've noticed.
I think the question ought to be why is your belief on the matter not the result of propaganda in the reverse direction? When you believe something that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree with then it seems it’s much more likely you are the victim of propaganda.
If 97% of the world’s oncologists say you have cancer then it’s likely you have cancer. Believing otherwise is deranged.
If 97% of the world’s oncologists say you have cancer then it’s likely you have cancer. Believing otherwise is deranged.
Must have to do with Covid and trusting the "experts" who turned out to be a bunch of frauds and liars.
One doesn't have to fundamentally disagree with the existence of an issue like climate change in order to notice it warping into mass hysteria. Having lived through several such episodes I've given up convincing people that it is, in fact, mass hysteria, since people who don't see it right away never admit it until it winds down. I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests.
Hysteria is too strong a word. Perhaps you speak in hyperbole. Few people are actually hysterical over the destruction of the environment that we are doing collectively.
I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests.
Why is the idiocy on this side of the issue and not yours? In terms of pushing political interests I think a relatively objective analysis of how corporations are influencing research and the messaging with regard to climate science would lead one to the opposite conclusion you appear to have come to.
At least progress has been made. Thirty years ago people like you were at the denial stage. You aren’t denying the problem, just labeling those who want to take steps to mitigate it as hysterical. Soon you will be at the “We can’t do anything about it” stage.
I just hope we don't kill too many people with the "degrowth" idiocy which is fueled by flimsy doomerist predictions that are only loosely based on legitimate science but mostly pushed by entities with political and/or financial interests.
Why is the idiocy on this side of the issue and not yours? In terms of pushing political interests I think a relatively objective analysis of how corporations are influencing research and the messaging with regard to climate science would lead one to the opposite conclusion you appear to have come to.
At least progress has been made. Thirty years ago people like you were at the denial stage. You aren’t denying the problem, just labeling those who want to take steps to mitigate it as hysterical. Soon you will be at the “We can’t do anything about it” stage.
I thought you were replying in good faith until the last paragraph, too bad. Legitimate climate scientists (who aren't just hopping on the bandwagon) will echo my sentiment, perhaps with less hyperbolic language although I don't believe that calling it mass hysteria at this point is hyperbolic. But they are consistently pushed out of mainstream, popular "science" because they tend to have the appropriate level of humility and nuanced views as opposed to apocalyptic screams that "the planet is on fire" and such, so much like previous episodes of mass hysteria, their comments are largely drowned out by the hysterics. Or they just don't speak up because of people like you who'd smear them as deniers.
The vast majority of climate scientists believe you are wrong. A very small minority of them believe you are right. Given that climate science is not like mathematics where absolute certainty is possible it’s best for people to go with the overwhelming consensus expert opinion. In a world of uncertain knowledge this is the best we can do and it isn’t hysteria to think there’s a huge problem.
If my view wins out in the political sense then we’ll end up with a world with much more clean energy, a lot less pollution, less reliance on plastics, less resource wars, cleaner water, cleaner air, more trees, etc. If your view wins out politically, and you are correct that the issue is overblown, then we end up with worse air quality, more pollution, unclean water, etc.
Whether or not my views on climate change are correct, mitigating the harm to the environment benefits everyone. This truly is a case where Pascal’s wager makes sense. So let’s stop swimming in our own shit and create a clean environment.
If my view wins out in the political sense then we’ll end up with a world with much more clean energy, a lot less pollution, less reliance on plastics, less resource wars, cleaner water, cleaner air, more trees, etc. If your view wins out politically, and you are correct that the issue is overblown, then we end up with worse air quality, more pollution, unclean water, etc.
Whether or not my views on climate change are correct, mitigating the harm to the environment benefits everyone. This truly is a case where Pascal’s wager makes sense. So let’s stop swimming in our own shit and create a clean environment.
I can’t help but notice the accusation of hysteria is backed by a conspicuous lack of evidence or meaningful policy proposals whereas the people you’re attacking have both decades of data, accurate predictions, and detailed policies which have been heavily analyzed.
> Having lived through several such episodes
No, you have not ;) Noone has, and it shows what unfortunately leads to the opposite bad of hysteria (which is an much exaggerated claim for the minimum we are doing, if there'd be anything like hysteria except for activists I may find some hope back): downplaying it too much.
No, you have not ;) Noone has, and it shows what unfortunately leads to the opposite bad of hysteria (which is an much exaggerated claim for the minimum we are doing, if there'd be anything like hysteria except for activists I may find some hope back): downplaying it too much.
I believe you may have misread them. I read this as saying they have been through several episodes of mass hysteria ( which is eminently believable, and many of us have in fact lived through several such episodes in our lifetimes, even if we aren't that old ;) ).
Nope, I read it exactly as that and imo it is ridiculous, top three episodes to clarify?
Covid-19, Y2K, Cold War. Not in that order.
Yea, those 100F degree temps down in the southern hemisphere this winter (now for them) are a complete fluke, completely not correlated with anything else.
Heh, this reminds me of a family member I was talking to recently. "We break high temperature records all the time, that is totally normal".
Heh, this reminds me of a family member I was talking to recently. "We break high temperature records all the time, that is totally normal".
That's such a frog-cooking-in-the-kettle thing to say, I'm actually impressed that your companion didn't get to the conclusion it entails!?
And then those same dumb family members will talk about how when they were kids, the snow would reach the roof of houses. They conspicuously ignore that it hasn't done so in decades.
sigh