World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
You have never seen any impact because you're trying to mash your hands over your ears and close your eyes. I literally just told you the an impact she's had on my family and you still don't recognise an impact.
Of course, I'm sure anecdotes mean nothing to you, so look further at the awards, media attention, speeches, international demonstrations that started with her. Zero impact? Jesus, we are having this conversation because of her.
Honestly, if you can't imagine that this particular household name, face of Time magazine and organiser of global protests has had any impact at all, you probably also believe that the moon landing was faked, the election was stolen, the earth is flat, and there's no helping your unhealthy relationship with bad takes.
Yes, how damaging she is to the cause. Due to her it’s been hard to get any politician to listen because of her nutty behavior.
While it seems to have swayed you, she has t swayed American discussion on the topic.
Unfortunately, that says more about American discussion - America has moved beyond left Vs right to reality Vs "alternative facts". For example, climate change denialism, large vaccines cause autism, the election fraud nonsense. Unfortunately, given that opportunistic morons like America's republican party have politicised and denied climate change, I'm sure they'll be a segment of the population that will blame anything, including Greta.
So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn't warm to her, but they never would have.
I never said such a thing. Nice straw man.
You're right, I apologise I didn't represent your view fairly, we don't fully agree, though I maintain we agree that America hasn't fully embraced Greta.
I disagree that it's that no American politicians warm to her and her loud behaviour (which is what put her in the spotlight). Biden for example said to Trump: "What kind of president bullies a teenager? @realDonaldTrump, you could learn a few things from Greta on what it means to be a leader,”. Doesn't sound like he's too dismissive of Greta's behaviour, does it?
In fact, it's generally down the left/right, truth/fiction party line, since Greta conveniently represents climate change/truth.
That’s part of her turn off but Americans in general don’t like others tell us what to do.
Climate change is a complex topic as many people don’t want to admit it’s happening. To me it’s obvious it happening and arguing about the cause is stupid.
Even if it’s not man made, nuclear power, solar power, electric cars, etc all help with the pollution and the environment. Everyone should be for that. It shouldn’t be political. It should be common sense.
That’s why I dont like Greta. She puts the focus on her and make people polarized on the topic. The debate turns to her, rather than the solution.
I’m not sure it’s man made or not. Doesn’t really matter to me. I’d rather live in a world with less pollution and less fracking.
Nobody likes being told what to do, but when it affects others, it unfortunately becomes necessary, even for Americans. For example, if an someone wanted to punch you in the mouth or take your things, they would be told not to do that, as it affects others. If people affect billions of future lives through probably terrible choices, I'll join in telling them what to do. I'm very big on liberty, but your liberty ends where mine begins.
Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there's little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.
Climate change and its causes should only really be up for serious debate by climate scientists, as uninformed pundits with bad takes just convince idiots into conclusions which hurt all of us. However, I disagree with you about whether the cause is anthropogenic is important, as a misunderstanding of that truth steers the misinformed towards a resigned apathy that it's not our fault and can't be changed. For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree. It should be continually challenged and refined, but by people who have spent their lives studying it at the highest levels.
That said, it's great to hear of your wishes for reduced pollution, safer energy production and cleaner transport, as they are aligned with a better tomorrow.
That number is much higher for young Republicans.
It all depends on the wording. When we tell emissions. 50%
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4349373-half-republicans-new-poll-support-biden-push-cut-emissions/amp/
And how does that change anything ? It doesn’t.
That's excellent news that younger republicans are more receptive to science - thanks for raising, I'll check that out.
The scientific consensus should change your mind if you're on the fence and scientifically literate - unless you're a climate scientist on the cutting edge of research and know something that 99% of the other climate scientists have got wrong, but haven't quite finished convincing them! I think it's because people misjudge the gap in understanding between a layperson and a climate scientist in ways that almost nobody does in other fields, perhaps because we can all look outside, feel weather and notice difference between seasons. You rarely hear of a layperson disagreeing with experts about microprocessor architecture, consumer electronics, space exploration, air travel, medtech like MRI machines, encryption, GPS - because the gap is understood. Unless you have a very accomplished and relevant history, deferring to scientific consensus is the only educated default.
Consensus also said homosexuality was a mental illness. Would you have agreed just because the scientist said 99.9% agree? I wouldn’t have.
On any topic, you shouldn’t assume consensus is always right. You should read on the topic and try to understand the science.
Scientist also suggested stupid things like carbon credits. It’s greenwashing.
Whatever we do, it needs to be focused, sustainable and effective. We only get one shot at this to do it right.
No, I like to think I also wouldn't have agreed with consensus on homosexuality's (remember that I don't agree with consensus on eating animals, so I agree that blindly following a majority isn't always the smart move.
However, you've fallen into two very specific traps - let me explain:
A) Homosexuality isn't science, it's morality - and we've seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history
B) Science is sometimes wrong, yes. However, we don't know which as lay people are going to be wrong, so it would be as futile as randomly not trusting science on any of the other topics I mentioned (do you think they are doing MRI machines wrong?). On the contrary, anybody can understand and weigh in on moral topics. However, while you can read some pop science articles and listen to opinions about well-studied scientific topics, but you simply don't have the extensive background to be informed enough to contribute anything but noise, doubt and misinformation to the conversation.
No it’s science. It’s an insult to say psychiatrist isn’t science. It’s a branch of medicine. We deal with mental health issues and when I started medical school that was around the time homosexuality we removed from the DSM which isn’t a morality book.
Margret Sanger pushed abortion to lower the black population due to her belief they were inferior.
That was morality. That was the scientific belief of the time.
I can go on and on but I think you get the point.
You may read pop science but I actually publish im journals. We are not the same.
We're talking at cross purposes. I am absolutely not saying there is no science in the genetics or psychology of homosexuality, I'm saying that opposing the antiquated idea that homosexuality is unacceptable was, and is, a question of morality that requires no science - that anyone can weigh in on. In principle, can you understand where I'm coming from? The difference between a matter of human respect and challenging decades of PhD level research outside of one's field?
If you're actually a published climate scientist, then you are absolutely entitled to have your view listened to, but with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't mention that morsel up until now, as that would be kind of key to this discussion. Given that I'm also a sceptical person (though in a different way perhaps), I feel a little doubtful and suspect this is the point where you tell me that your identity and your published work is conveniently secret - but please, tell me I'm wrong. Even in that (sorry, but unlikely) eventuality, that would entitle you to your view, but the other rational laypeople like me would be better served by assuming the correctness of the current scientific consensus until you make significant enough traction to be able to convince your fellow climate scientists.
You keep bringing up morality when it's irrelevant. It wasn't a morality discussion but a mental health discussion. That is why consensus creates group think. When you publish, you tweak the known, and you get accolades.
No, I publish on psychological topics. I have several friends who publish on climate change but I do not. I mean I could, right now lots of unqualified people are publishing on the topic but I think it's best to stick to your expertise.
My main point is that consent is only a guideline. It shouldn't be the gotcha in a discussion. I don't deny climate change. I think it is most likely manmade at least in some fashion. According to the study that came up with 99.9% they would include me in that number.
At the end of the day, I don't think it matters if it is man made or not. That is just a point for people to argue about and do nothing. What is more important is that we focus on changes that hopefully, make a difference. Not doing anything valuable because people want to focus if it's man made or a natural event ignores that the climate is changing and more rapidly than in the past.
I live in three different states. I can tell you Oregon is much hotter than it used to be. It could be a fluke but it is concerning. Many of my friends don't have AC, not because they can't afford it, but historically, it wasn't ever needed.
Of course morality is important. I would like to think if I had no understanding of psychology, genetics, or any other scientific field, I would still want to weigh in on letting homosexual people live their lives without consequence in times when it was illegal, since wishing punishment upon them for doing no harm to anybody is clearly a question of morality, not science. On most of the things you have said, I understand where you are coming from, but here I simply don't get it - could you elaborate please? Do you understand my perspective?
If you publish on psychological topics, that's great, though clearly not relevant to climate science (except, that I'd expect it'd afford you a better-than-most understanding of the scientific method at least).
Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field. If somebody disagreed with expert consensus on any very complicated technical topic, I'd just think they were simple - you said it best - it's best to stick to your expertise. This doesn't mean it's not OK to form opinions on subjective things, less technical things, or to ask questions about technical fields, but deviating from the default on very technical things is just a very long winded way of being most likely wrong. You'll be right once in a blue moon because experts don't know everything, but statistically not about the thing you deviated on.
I will concede one important point here - you're right that my 99.9% figure isn't very useful at all, since it would indeed include people in the relevant fields, so I've overstated my point by a large amount. A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/). Again, a big enough proportion for people outside of climate science to form a sensible default of "yes, we're doing it".
As to whether it being man-made is a useful point of argument (aside from helping to signpost people forming opinions outside of their expertise), we'll have to agree to disagree - you believe not, I believe it's important, as it would help us model the outcomes better. For example, if humans weren't causing it, some may further believe that it is inevitable and thus there may be less point in trying to fix it.
In any case, I've enjoyed this so far and no hostility intended - I enjoy talking with people I don't entirely agree with, as it helps me to either cement or change my opinions - at least those for which I feel qualified to deviate from scientific consensus on ;).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=6061013b3f9f
I actively encourage you to read more on the 97% to understand the debate about it.
It isn't the gotcha in a good way. It can mean there is an actual agreement, people are worried about being canceled, or it means where the money is. Read the above article, and it will explain that the consensus isn't what you think it means. Also, I could call myself a climate scientist and publish on the topic. Some people unethically publish on whatever the hot topic is to keep their funding going.
Either way we have to work with the issue. We have to store more water, etc for growing crops, maybe change crops or other things to adapt to the changing world.
I think instead of focusing on carbon fuel is killing everyone; we focus on things like better air, better water, etc. The Greta shit fit has turned people off. We need to focus on the benefits and not focus on taking people's gas cars away. As the rhetoric has went up, people have tuned out. The one saving grace is I think people are actually noticing it more. It isn't so much it went up 1.5 degrees. It is summer is so damn hot, I almost died.
That's an article in Forbes magazine by a guy with a degree in philosophy who rejects climate change in its entirety, and runs a company paid by the Kentucky Coal Association, (indirectly) employees of Alliance Coal, and by other fossil fuel companies.
The article has also aged comically badly: "The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half".
Lastly, that article is from 9 years ago. There is a pretty comprehensive rebuttal from the respected scientist who this guy has taken exception to, which I'd suggest reading: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
I think your suggested solutions of focusing on air and water quality are great, though phasing out fossil fuels is a must. They are equivalent to the tobacco industry in this debate in their lobbying for terrible outcomes capacity and will distort reality and ruin our collective futures for profit, and this is where your talent for cynicism is best directed.
That’s how you get to cleaner air.
If you notice several authors the cook cited said he was wrong on their study or view. I get it’s easy dismiss the author because you don’t agree with his statement but trying to say the authors of the studies don’t know their own work is odd rebuttal
I can't disagree with you there with regards to phasing out fossil fuels being a good path to clean air - plenty we agree on.
I'd encourage reading the rebuttal I linked, as it directly references the people contesting the figures (heading "Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%").
I did read the Forbes article and spent some time down some rabbit holes, but it just doesn't seem a strong case to combat what appears to be a very strong consensus that climate change is man made.
Not so academic, but this xkcd on the subject is brilliant https://xkcd.com/1732/
Isn’t that Cooks own website?
Yes, it's his own response to explain the criticism. More impartially, I've checked out the Wikipedia article too on the consensus, which speaks of the Cook study, but really puts into perspective how weak the criticism is in the face of the absolute epic mass of agreement (again, also bearing in mind that Cook's is not the only report of its type.
Given the overwhelming isolation of disagreement and the clear conflicts of interest from the fossil fuel industry in promoting the overly sponsored-by-fossil-fuel hacks that generally appear in opinion pieces in outlets looks Forbes and Fox, it really is a big stretch to go against the grain.
You can Google and see many other people came to the same conclusion as the Forbes article. You will also see other authors arguing about about how he miss cited their works.
With all due respect, I've hunted down rabbit holes and everything I've seen so far has been discredited. Taking Richard Tol as an example (since he's the first on the Forbes article by the philosophy degree guy who gets paid by fossil fuel groups), Cook's analysis of his criticism sounds completely valid and I haven't managed to find anything by Tol which contradicts it https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm.
Googling to try and cherry pick these morsels of criticism from unqualified people just seems like really heavy duty lifting to try and reach the wrong wrong position. Shutting down the absolute masses of evidence which disagree with you in a refusal to align with scientific consensus in a technical field just seems intellectually futile... But here's a challenge: given that Wikipedia is a community effort, pick the most valid sounding critic you can on the topic and edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change article to include it, and people much closer to the topic than I am will follow that chain if it's missing, with others providing their retorts until eventually the truth is reached. Spoiler alert: there are so many vocal, but ultimately wrong climate sceptics, that this will be routinely attempted, and what's left is the pages and pages of truth (Tol is indeed included and that chain has been followed).
I guess we could go around in circles, but you've got to the point of just telling me to do some Googling to disprove the very strong global scientific consensus, which sounds a little like the "do your research" trope you hear from the antivaxers. I simply haven't seen a compelling reason to believe that the climate scientists are wrong, and the onus is on the relevant experts who disagree to chip away at that consensus if they feel it's wrong. The fact they have been failing should draw reasonable people to conclude that climate change is real and is man-made.
It's so painfully obvious that you're alone in life... If you spent a few hours around real people you might feel differently about the world and the people in it. Instead it's all rules and courts and echo chambers.