There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Shadowedcross ,

This thread is just cancer, reminds me of reddit.

flemtone ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    theFibonacciEffect ,

    They are demonstrating for good reason.

    Erdgeist ,

    Jesus wouldn’t like you.

    bananabenana ,

    Billionaires destroying yours’ and your family’s only planet. Your response is to get angry at the messenger like a cuck for the billionaire class who don’t give a shit if you live or die. Cool and normal response

    zbyte64 ,

    Hell, I would support my kids doing exactly this.

    BatmanandRobin ,
    @BatmanandRobin@lemmy.today avatar

    That’s one of the many reasons you are a bad father

    zbyte64 ,

    Any dad that says something like that to another dad is infinitely worse.

    _bonbon_ ,

    She looks like she is jealous of Malaya for getting more attention

    arc , (edited )

    I think climate activists would just be better off doing what everyone else does - lobbying. Identify politicians who represent areas who would benefit from pollution controls, or green investment or whatever and push the message. Performative acts in front of cameras might feel good but it’s a blunt tool to change policy. Some protestors such as “just stop oil” campaigners are so stupid that they actually help the causes they supposedly oppose.

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah but here’s the problem

    They don’t own massive fossil fuel companies that make them trillions of dollars

    RizzRustbolt ,

    Have they tried owning massive fossil fuel that make them trillions in profit?

    Might help.

    Ilovemyirishtemper ,

    That’s probably true, but, at least in the US, nothing will really move forward without the populace backing it (or not knowing about it to begin with). Otherwise, those politicians will never get elected again, and whatever climate policy they created will be negated by the new politician.

    So it seems like she’s trying to go the route of getting the populace backing first, and then she’ll have that strength to draw on when dealing with politicians. A bunch more people at that point would be also calling for change, so she wouldn’t have to do much convincing. The fear of losing their political standing would be the impetus for change.

    In my particularly weird corner of the world, we are still trying to convince people that climate change is real. I can’t imagine how much the deniers would freak out if their elected official backed something that they think doesn’t exist.

    I_Clean_Here ,

    What do you think they are trying to do, dumbass?

    Schmoo ,

    Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

    Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

    glitchdx ,

    Regardless of your opinions about her specifically, it’s a simple fact that positive societal change doesn’t happen by asking nicely. Look at every civil rights movement ever. Nothing got done until people were inconvenienced and companies lost money.

    arc ,

    No change doesn’t happen by asking nicely, but I think some joined up thinking by these groups would get them further than performative protesting and getting arrested. If you want change then you lobby politicians on the positive benefits of change, and businesses on the potential profits to be had from implementing it.

    Crikeste ,

    You: Hey government, here’s my vote!

    Giant Corporations: Hey government, here’s $1 trillion

    zbyte64 ,

    That’s unrealistic. A supreme court justice only costs an RV and some vacations. You only need a few billion to buy control, assuming your interests are aligned with the other billionaires and they don’t negate your spending.

    Crikeste ,

    I’ve seen lobbying donations of $30,000. Our country is ABSOLUTELY fucked.

    Bye America 🇺🇸 (more like buy America amirite)

    Corkyskog ,

    That’s not the real bribery. The real bribery is uncountable, sometimes literally bribes that are obscured, or more often positions in companies for them and their friend’s and family, consulting fees, etc. This can all add up to hundreds of millions.

    Heck… even one of those vacations that the person you responded to was referencing probably comes to over 50 - 100k per when you consider fully burdened cost.

    Miaou ,

    There’s more than one country in this world

    Theharpyeagle ,

    What civil rights advancements have been won with this strategy?

    Peddlephile ,

    But all the lobbying has already happened - for decades - and nothing has changed. Fossil fuel companies have poured in billions over the course of decades, and still are, to counter lobby and spread misinformation to keep the status quo.

    You’re only seeing the ‘performative’ protesting in the media and not the lobbying because it’s easy to report on, but in reality this movement is on its last legs. It is THAT level of desperation now.

    Do you think they’d still be protesting if the government actually implemented the policies brought forward by climate scientists decades ago?

    ArmokGoB ,

    If you want change you put a bullet in someone powerful to make the rest of their ilk realize they aren’t untouchable.

    moon ,

    Why do you assume the two are exclusive?

    arc ,

    Because they are. Groups like PETA, or Just Stop Oil are clowns who hurt their own cause. Performative protesting might win people a participation prize but to everyone else it’s just “look at meeeeee!”. At a certain point it actually becomes toxic to the cause. I know if I wanted to harm environmental campaigning then I’d invent Just Stop Oil.

    Meanwhile big business are sending lobbiests in to change politician’s minds, to make arguments that appeal to their rationality, or self-interest. THAT is what environmental campaigners should be doing - lobbying, extoling the benefits of environmental action, changing minds. Getting arrested in front of cameras over and over just becomes pathetic and performative.

    kerrypacker ,

    Yeah that’s bullshit. Society has been improving overall throughout history. Lots of positive change is brought about by people chasing bigger profits.

    SecretSauces ,
    @SecretSauces@lemmy.world avatar

    Only when those positive changes lead to bigger profits than staying the course

    archomrade ,

    I honestly cannot tell if this is meant to be ironic or not.

    original2 ,

    had me in the first half

    computerscientistI ,

    I always ridiculed her, although secretly I admired her determination and also agreed with her aims.

    Then she started her pro-Gaza ramblings. She clearly has no idea about history of the middle east and also can’t classifiy current events. To noone’s surprise as she has hardly visited school. She’s also 20 now, so a full adult, she does not have this young-innocent-girl Jeanne d’Arc bonus anymore.

    Killing_Spark ,

    To noone’s surprise as she has hardly visited school

    What?

    Eyck_of_denesle ,

    No offense. Just a genuine question. Where do activists like Greta get income or the money to travel or just for day to day living? Especially considering she has been doing this since a young age.

    Pls don’t take my comment as in a bad light. I’m the same age as her so I always wondered. The answer could be NGO’s collecting donations but I’m not sure.

    eardon ,

    It’s a very good question to ask and anyone who gets mad at you over it isn’t worth taking seriously.

    I assume she just has rich parents that pay for everything.

    sunbytes ,

    She might get paid for interviews etc.

    Or she might just have a patreon or something.

    Agent641 ,

    Onlyfans

    eardon ,

    If only, lol.

    ipkpjersi ,

    Bonk.

    Eyck_of_denesle ,

    Andrew tate on lemmy?

    65gmexl3 ,
    @65gmexl3@lemmy.world avatar

    sauce

    Hubi ,

    Organizations like Fridays for Future are funded by donations and part of the money goes towards protests and publicity. I assume they allocate some money to have these prominent people present.

    tb_ ,
    @tb_@lemmy.world avatar

    article

    It mentions her donating earnings from books she sells as well as award prizes to NGO’s, and it mentions her travelling on her parents’ dime.

    Those award prizes can go into the 6 and 7 figures, apparently.

    Fredselfish ,
    @Fredselfish@lemmy.world avatar

    I bought her book so sure that helped. Give me a link and I will donate to. She doing good work. Wish she could be charge of her government. She the type of world leaders we need.

    oDIRECTORo ,

    Iran.

    Conyak ,

    Her father is an actor and her mother an opera singer who has won Eurovision. They are wealthy.

    LemmyKnowsBest ,

    She’s Illuminati. She was born into it. Only an illuminati kid would be given such a huge international platform.

    Eyck_of_denesle ,

    Umm guys this is most probably satire

    Bgugi ,

    That’s the great thing about the Internet… You can never be sure.

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    She’s Illuminati

    Of like to hear the “reasoning” behind this statement.

    LemmyKnowsBest ,

    Of like

    🤔❓

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    I’d like

    Swipe typing mistake.

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    There’s a few large orgs like Extinction Rebellion that are really organised. Greta probably takes the train which isn’t that expensive in Europe and then couch surfs because that’s what being a hippie is all about

    VinnyDaCat ,

    Her parents are incredibly wealthy.

    It’s a complaint many have with her. She comes from the same class of people that are responsible for most of the problems of the world. It’s genuinely off-putting but there’s really not that many choices out there for people with this amount of influence and money who are willing to take up this fight.

    ColdWater ,
    @ColdWater@lemmy.ca avatar

    She got detained more than my uncle

    SayJess ,
    @SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    A climate protester who is frequently arrested/detained due to protesting has been arrested/detained for protesting. This is the story every time she is arrested/detained.

    Maybe I’m jaded, but, who cares? How is this world news?

    eardon ,

    Same reason anything that happened to Navalny was world news.

    These are (were) good people fighting the good fight. It’s news when they are punished for trying to help us.

    Maybe I’m jaded, but, who cares?

    You do, clearly.

    gravitas_deficiency ,

    While I get your point, I would definitely have called Navalny “way less bad than Putin”, but not “good”. He never really renounced or seriously backed away from his ultranationalist vibe.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I’m no fan of her but it’s news. She travels the world and babbles like an idiot. That fits the Definition of world news.

    werefreeatlast ,

    I hope governments pick up on this climate thing. A demonstration is always a great way to convince people.

    I’ve lived in places that have a climate and it’s great!

    arin ,

    Is this some ai post?

    stebo02 ,
    @stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    I think it’s an attempt at comedy

    eardon ,

    Definitely felt like bad reddit-humor to me.

    werefreeatlast ,

    Hey I try my best.

    catsarebadpeople ,

    ?

    uhmbah ,

    LOL

    People down voting a joke. Sheesh

    FenrirIII , (edited )
    @FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    eardon ,

    If you have to explain a joke, it’s probably not funny.

    I got it and it still wasn’t funny. Maybe you’re just not funny.

    youngGoku ,

    If you have to explain a joke, it’s probably not funny. I got it and it still wasn’t funny.

    That would be enough by itself, harsh but reasonable.

    Maybe you’re just not funny.

    Now that’s just mean and uncalled for.

    eardon ,

    I guess the only criticism you’re used to is praise.

    That would distort how you perceive your humor.

    youngGoku ,

    Actually the fist statement you made is a criticism on the joke.

    The second statement is a generalized assumption on OPs character traits.

    To assume someone just isn’t funny (in general) by reading one of their comments reveals a lot about how dense you are.

    CluckN ,

    Bad. This girl does more good to the cause than hurt. We need more of her and less silly people to change minds.

    rar ,

    Her being portrayed by the media or the memes as the “whiny girl seeking attention” is also worrying as well. It really distracts from the real issue and diminishes her work as well.

    fine_sandy_bottom ,

    Honestly I think she distracts from the real issue. Frankly, I can’t think of a worse person to motivate people to take action.

    arandomthought ,

    I mean the scientists have been loud and clear. So have some politicians, but that’s not a special “story” for the media. So it just happened that a very vocal (at the time) little Girl got a lot of attention, because it seemed so special.

    But how does what she is saying distract from the real issue? That’s not an attack, I’m genuinely curious what you think the real issue is and how she distracts from it…

    fine_sandy_bottom ,

    It’s not what she’s saying, it’s the messenger.

    Do you think she’s the type of person that a climate change laggard would respect, or want to engage with?

    arandomthought ,

    Her argument for being vocal is that her and her generation will have to live with the consequences of our fuckups the longest and hardest. I think that’s pretty valid. Also, she wasn’t “elected by the central climate movement council to be their representative”, if anyone, the media “elected” her and gave her a platform. So maybe be mad at them for not choosing someone “better”?

    There are plenty of old white men with respectable titles saying the exact same thing as her. If a “climate change laggard” wants to hear the same message in a deeper voice, they certainly can. For those who can be moved to action at all (and there are definitely many who are “too far gone” in some conspiracy bullshit) she can be effective for many, especially younger people who have to be shaken from their stupor. So I think it’s a bit critical to “tell the girl to shut up”.

    nitrolife ,
    @nitrolife@rekabu.ru avatar

    Her argument for being vocal is that her and her generation will have to live with the consequences of our fuckups the longest and hardest.

    Surprise, but if you stop generate energy by oil you can’t have hard industry. It is quite difficult to cast steel without huge energy consumption. And aluminum is even more difficult. But for some reason, no one wants to ride horses and abandon airplanes. Them can stop buy industrial products. And problem will gone.

    And no, strangling heavy industry in your country until it is evacuated to China is not a fight for the global environment.

    It is convenient, of course, to tell what idiots everyone around is without having worked a single day in heavy industry. And in Greta’s case, without having worked a day at all, apparently. I suggest she work at the factory for a couple of years and then repeat her statements.

    And it is better to live for a couple of years in a country with a less mild climate. Let’s say where it is -30 in winter. Surely she doesn’t hope that all 9 billion people will fit into the warm bosom of the Gulf Stream? Pollution from heating is also very significant. We don’t even turn off cars here in some cities because then we just won’t start them.

    JoeBigelow ,
    @JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca avatar

    Oof, just say what you mean

    fine_sandy_bottom ,

    Ok. She’s a vapid twenty year old with no life experience and nothing to say. She has no expertise, and she’s never suffered any inconvenience to prevent climate change.

    mmcintyre ,

    Never suffered any inconvenience? Like, have you seen how she travels? But also…

    What expertise do you need to say “stop adding carbon to the atmosphere” at this point? Everyone lives here, we all should have something to say about what is inevitably coming down the pike - especially the young. You just come across as someone who has everything to lose wanting those with nothing to lose to sit down, shut up, buckle up, and just be grateful for the ride to whatever hell we’re heading to.

    fine_sandy_bottom ,

    have you seen how she travels

    Honestly no, but however it is it’s part of her brand. She’s a climate change super star, she could literally spend the rest of her life putting her name on books written by ghost writers and make 10 times the amount really achievable by the working class. Everyone does some backpacking with questionable modes of transport in their 20s. Not everyone builds a media empire out of it.

    What expertise do you need to say “stop adding carbon to the atmosphere” at this point?

    None. Sadly however there is no “stop adding carbon to the atmosphere” button, and we need to figure out how to do it. You can ride your bike to work all you like, but the kind of reduction we need is going to come from polluting industries. Technology and governance is going to solve climate change, not cycling.

    You just come across as someone who has everything to lose wanting those with nothing to lose to sit down, shut up […]

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that Greta isn’t promoting meaningful change.

    FunkPhenomenon ,

    lol 55 comments disagreeing with one person.

    UraniumBlazer ,

    Holy shit yeah! Come on ppl… Why waste time engaging with a clear dumass

    idunnololz ,
    @idunnololz@lemmy.world avatar

    I have auto collapse comments based on score for this reason.

    daltotron ,

    What I think I’ve noticed about lemmy, I guess reddit as well, and maybe just the modern internet, is that people are very vulnerable to obvious bad faith bait. The classic strategy of “do not feed the troll” doesn’t really seem to be one that most people are familiar with. I can sort of get behind social shaming strategies, which might require engagement, but I think the sad truth is just that most people can’t help themselves when it comes to responding to a troll.

    eardon ,

    I think your problem is that you assume everyone who disagrees with you or the tribe is a troll.

    daltotron ,

    that’s definitely epic and true

    JasonDJ ,

    I think everyone’s problem is that there are actually somehow still people that believe climate change is a hoax.

    Those people aren’t trolls or disagreeing with “the tribe”. These people are absolute idiots. They need to be shamed and called out.

    RootBeerGuy ,
    @RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    Welcome to the internet.

    eardon ,

    Where?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Good. This girl does more harm to the cause than help. We need less of her and more serious people to change minds.

    Deestan ,

    We need more like her who take the threat as a threat and act like it’s a threat.

    Being “serious” or calm about it is not working, and catastrophically so.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    She just babbles and has no solution to the problem. She’s addicted to the media attention.

    As voters we need to push politicians to make changes and in America that is through taxation and not bans.

    Biden has pushed stupid legislation that won’t accomplish anything.

    You want to reduce ice cars? Increase gasoline taxes and remove subsidies. Gas would double in price with would reduce the miles people drive and the size of their cars.

    The problem is it’s a global problem and everyone needs to pitch it.

    lettruthout ,

    Hmm… seems like you should thank her.

    Because she participated in that protest, she got arrested, a news source wrote about it, and you got to bring up good points about how we need to take more action.

    Yeah she babbles speaks about the issues, but since she’s not (yet?) an elected official, what else would you have her do?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Personally I’d like to see her go away. She does nothing to help in my opinion and gives credit it’s a crazy conspiracy. She just comes off as an idiot.

    The way you make change is vote for people that want to make real changes. Not stupid crap like carbon credits. People that have real ideas.

    You talk to your friends about it. I’ve got several people to switch to teslas and solar power. It requires logic and facts.

    Just babbling like an idiot turns people off and they don’t think a thing but made up conspiracy.

    Plopp ,

    Ah yes, the person who has rallied up more people (current and future voters) globally around the climate issue than anyone else as of late has done nothing to help. I think what you mean is that she annoys you.

    Crackhappy ,
    @Crackhappy@lemmy.world avatar

    Never argue with an idiot. They’ll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    She damages the vision.

    I don’t know anyone she’s rallied. She’s universally made fun of this country.

    What has changed since she’s been ranting? Nothing. She wants the focus on her and not the issue

    Plopp ,

    Ah, Neuromancer doesn’t know anyone she’s rallied. My bad, case closed then! lmao

    DarkThoughts ,

    She literally formed the largest climate protest movement in the world, while you sit here and spread dumbass conspiracy bullshit about her.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I never said anything about a conspiracy. I said she an idiot who really isn’t helping.

    thisorthatorwhatever ,

    You’re still advocating individual car ownership as a sustainable future…buses, trams, trolleys, LRT, trains. 6000lbs (2200kilos) just to get a few groceries is over kill.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Maybe you don’t live in America but for the foreseeable future, that is the solution. The first step is a reduction in using fossil fuels. Public transportation would take decades to build out to a useable level in America.

    MagneticFusion ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Minotaur ,

    Not just in Lemmy, but I think there’s an increasing divide between the demographic I’m going to call “has only ever lived in a major city” and “everyone else”, especially online.

    A shocking amount of people (to me) have never once in their life lived in an area with less than like 500,000 people. To many of these people, it is incomprehensible to imagine that a lot of people have legitimate needs for cars. They have good intentions, and many of them are otherwise smart people, but they really struggle to imagine how and where many Americans live, and what all goes into things like the transportation of goods and services.

    Public transportation is great! But without what would be the largest investment in infrastructure in human history by several magnitudes there’s simply no way to just get rid of 90% of car ownership or whatever.

    Kolanaki ,
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    “It can’t be done instantly overnight so why even bother trying to do it slowly?”

    🙄

    Minotaur ,

    Why do people such as yourself read such a long comment, only to try to squeeze something out to disagree with?

    I never said that. I never said anything of the sort. What drives you to do such a thing?

    Kolanaki , (edited )
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    Public transportation is great! But without what would be the largest investment in infrastructure in human history by several magnitudes there’s simply no way to just get rid of 90% of car ownership or whatever.

    Because that is what the quoted argument boils down to. Apathy because it can’t be done instantly. No alternative solutions, just giving up.

    Minotaur ,

    Good lord you’re a crybaby. I say something is an objectively big task to do and you instantly start stamping your feet that I didn’t first preface how good and noble of a goal it was enough beforehand so I must have evil intentions.

    Do I need to make every statement starting with “I absolutely support building transportation and our local unions, however, it may be a large task. But! By overthrowing the ruling class and working together we can get it done!” For you to not be offended? Get a grip dude.

    MagneticFusion , (edited )

    deleted_by_author

    •
    wintermute_oregon ,

    Chicago was pretty good. I could do most things using the L. I don’t do buses. Not my type of crowd

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I would like to see more public options but at this time, that isn’t going to help much. California has been trying to build high speed rail since I was a kid. Still hasn’t done shit. I think hybrids are the gap technology until we can get electric cars more affordable. The 1% will always act like it’s everyone else and even if we increased fuel taxes. It won’t phase them.

    anon232 ,

    What do you mean you can’t come up with a transportation solution to transport millions of people around at any given moment that’s more convenient than them being able to travel to their destinations on their own without a long schedule?

    In case I need it, /s.

    Kraiden ,

    Did you even read the article? That's literally what they're calling for. The removal of subsidies.

    As for everyone needing to pitch in, just no. The vast majority of emissions come from sources outside public control. The "everyone needs to pitch in" and "watch your personal carbon footprint" crap is just effective marketing from BP.

    Not saying cutting down personal emissions is bad, every little helps...

    but it's not a solution. We need to be holding the big emmiters accountable.

    The only realistic way to doing that is through inconvenient protests like blocking roads and making sure we can't be ignored. How else do you force governments to turn on their benefactors?

    It's been over 50 years now, and we've seen very little real movement on this. it's been mostly token and empty gestures, and pandering. It's time we stepped up our game.

    Soooo she's got the right idea imo

    theneverfox ,

    Addicted to the attention? I know nothing about her except her age and her stance on climate change

    She doesn’t go off topic, she doesn’t do talk shows. Maybe she loves the attention deep down, but she stays on mission…She doesn’t abuse the privilege. She’s allowed to enjoy the process, I hope she does.

    I challenge you to follow your convictions to that extent

    wintermute_oregon ,

    She doesn’t abuse the privilege

    Like when she threw the fit that the train didn’t give her first class. Yep, doesn’t abuse her privilege at all.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    wintermute_oregon ,

    And? Where is my point wrong?

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    Eyyy, look at this guy. He openly supports the political ideology whose representatives worldwide have stonewalled every action to combat climate change, and he thinks we should give anything he says on the subject due consideration.

    What a jokester.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Yeah Tesla sure is against electric cars.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    Tesla is against good electric cars.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Tesla is a phenomenal car. The best electric on the market.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    www.tesla-fire.com

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Teslas are less likely to catch fire than an ice car.

    driveelectriccolorado.org/myth-buster-evs-fire/

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    If it’s a good, old-fashioned link-off you want…

    pursuitist.com/top-5-reasons-reviewers-and-critic…

    carscoops.com/…/tesla-model-s-plaid-buyer-rants-a…

    reuters.com/…/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/

    screenrant.com/tesla-build-quality-tiktok/

    But, hey, I get it. You already gave a bunch of money to Elon, probably before he revealed how stupid and corrupt he is, and now you have to continue justifying that purchase to yourself. Don’t let me stand in your way.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I don’t have to justify anything. I think it’s a great car as do most people who own them.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    Most people who spent a lot of money on something tell themselves that it’s great.

    NewPerspective ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    daltotron ,

    He’s also the one making like 80% of the posts to that community. Kind of sad, tbh.

    TheLowestStone ,
    @TheLowestStone@lemmy.world avatar

    Kind of?

    jordanlund ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    It doesn’t matter what other groups they participate in, if you can’t attack their ideas outside that, you don’t have a winning argument. Removing your comment under the civility rule.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    It wasn’t a lot of money. It was 70k

    thejml ,

    $70k is a lot of money for most people. I make a decent living and have been looking to replace mine and $30-50k can get A LOT of car. Even that is well outside the majority of people’s affordability.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Electric cars are not cheap but 70k isn’t what I’d call expensive.

    goferking0 ,

    Also Elon is a man child who will cause you more issues if you have a tesla and are publicly critical of it

    JasonDJ ,

    Tesla has serious quality control issues. They have serious design issues like being deliberately obtuse in the name of “innovation”. They haven’t made any significant improvements to any of their cars since the launch.

    Most importantly, they have serious leadership issues. Particularly, a long history of deception and broken promises.

    Musk was in the right place at the right time to launch Tesla. He’s got a pretty good corner on the battery market, and hopefully he doesn’t abuse that.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Quality is universally true. The only issue I’ve had is some paint issues. The paint is 100% garbage.

    Innovation ? They’ve had plenty. The octovalve is a perfect example.

    PunnyName ,

    Electric cars don’t help save the planet, they help save the car industry.

    Walkable / bikeable cities, and better public transit are better.

    NewPerspective ,

    He’s a mod for a conservative community and he’s drinking the Kool aid HARD

    almar_quigley ,

    Well first your insinuation you’re part of the cause. We’ll start there.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I’m part of the cause by driving electric and running solar? Please elaborate.

    almar_quigley ,

    Oh well gee I stand corrected. You’re a paragon of climate conscientiousness. I will not take anyone who posts articles from Fox News seriously. Actually in any matter come to think of it.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    You vote against your own self-proclaimed interests.

    You can’t vote conservative in the 21st century without being either a self-interested jackass trying to protect your own hoard of wealth, or an idiot who has been convinced by the wealth hoarders that conservatives are looking out for anyone but them.

    The people you vote for are the reason why this planet is on a collision course with fucked. The only reason Elon started bought an electric car company is because he saw a market ripe for exploitation and convinced idiots that he was a Stable Genius who wanted to save the world so they’d buy his shittily-made cars. He’s the richest person on the planet and could easily solve untold numbers of problems threatening humanity and Earth by himself, but he’ll only do the things that will make him even more money in the process.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I vote for my own interest but thanks for the advice.

    Neither party has a viable solution for climate change. I think the democrats is worse than the republicans.

    Also you don’t understand wealth. If Elon converted his wealth to cash, he’d no longer be at Tesla, space x, boring, etc. that wealth is the value of those companies.

    Personally I’d like to see him take a step back from Tesla before he runs it into the ground but I doubt he will.

    AbidanYre ,

    You think the Republicans (drill baby, drill) have a better answer than Democrats (subsidize Green energy)…

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I’m for nuclear power. It’s more sustainable.

    gregorum ,

    Exactly. They’ve come here to troll and look for a fight. Don’t engage them.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Your response is a troll response. In no way do you engage in the topic or the argument

    While you may think slacktivism is valuable. I don’t.

    Kolanaki ,
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    How the fuck does actually going out to protests and being arrested in the process count as slacktivism? Have you been arrested for what you believe in?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I don’t go out and protest. Not my thing. I have a job.

    I write my senators and I donate to politicians who share my values. Anyone who supports fracking. Doesn’t get a dollar for me. Anyone who is anti-abortion. Doesn’t get a dollar from me.

    Can you list how the world has changed since her protest? Doesn’t seem overly effective.

    gregorum ,

    not everyone has the privilege of using money to get politicians to do what they want.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Everyone can donate. You just have to prioritize things in your life.

    gregorum ,

    most people prioritize food and housing and bills over paying off politicians.

    again, not everyone is in your privileged position of being able to afford to pay off politicians to do what you want.

    goferking0 ,

    What else would you expect from a conservative?

    hemmes ,
    @hemmes@lemmy.world avatar

    I doubt any money he’s donating to politicians is going towards any of his causes.

    Kolanaki ,
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    So you’re a slacktivist. Makes sense.

    gregorum ,

    https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNWoxa2c1empqMm1vZnU5NnZyc282eWhrd2htaXR3NGw4dzRlcGFnbiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/IDGNYvFLkJKLK/giphy.gif

    HopingForBetter ,

    Hey, thanks for letting me know I need to block you and your community.

    K, thx, bi!

    pmmeyourtits , (edited )

    I’d like to engage in discussion with you, what exactly is slacktivism as you define it?

    Update: 5 hours and no response to me but plenty of others in this post. Clearly not discussing in good faith.

    Minotaur ,

    Genuinely curious: what does a “serious person” do to change minds here?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Work with legislatures or even boycott a business. You push for actual change that is reasonable and meaningful. Instead of trying to push electric down everyone’s throats, push hybrids. Push plug in hybrids. We have the ability to do that now.

    Minotaur ,

    Well, those are two very different things. One is essentially for politicians and basically amounts to “just get Congress to do better” (a whole lot easier said than done) and one is an act that essentially has to be championed by a person or organization and then implemented by a masse of people. Greta has called for boycotts before, so under this definition she’s good under your boat.

    I’ve read other comments of yours, and many of them are reasonable (more reasonable than the average user at least) and not worthy of downvotes. But your solutions seem to be missing a few steps between “be where we are now” and “just get everyone to drive a hybrid”.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Greta calling for a boycott, just would make people buy the product.

    Bud light recently was boycotted and look how effective that was.

    I’m not missing a step, you increase fuel taxes, end subsidies, end fracking and make hybrids tax advantageous.

    The market will sort itself out very quickly.

    Minotaur ,

    Okay, well you just added several steps right there, and you’re still missing some.

    Who increases fuel taxes and subsidies? How do we as a civilization get that done?

    wintermute_oregon , (edited )

    Your state senators and state representatives at the local and federal level. Taxes are done by the government. Remove subsidies are the same people.

    Minotaur ,

    Okay. How do we influence those state representatives to pass that legislation?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Meeting with them. Ask them to coffee or lunch. Build some rapport with them and then invite them to meet with like minded citizens.

    The issue is everyone knows if we increase gas taxes or remove subsidies. It’ll crush the lower class people. It’s why both parties dance around the issue.

    It’s also the only way to get rid of people driving 5 mpg suv. You have to price them out of it.

    Minotaur ,

    Okay. How many senators have you gotten coffee with?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    About a dozen. I live in the capital. So it’s a little easier to meet them.

    Minotaur ,

    Do you think that’s a typical experience for the average American

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Depends how involved you want to be. I’ve met with politicians all my life. That’s their job to listen to you.

    I use to see Ike every time he was in Missouri or I was in Washington. He felt it was important to talk to the people he represented.

    If your politicians won’t talk to you, you need to make it clear they won’t get your vote.

    Minotaur ,

    If you’ve talked to them then why hasn’t the change happened

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Well don’t expect a massive change in 30 days. I’ve only started talking to them about the fuel tax recently. Both sides are opposed as it’ll crush the poor.

    Minotaur ,

    You’ve been talking to them all your life though. So you must have gotten a lot of progress done yeah? You make it sound like you just heard about hybrids lately.

    nyctre ,

    Dude’s 35 days old, give him a break

    IzzyScissor ,

    Lmao, “People should boycott businesses, but if this one person does what I just said to do, then it’s actually bad because I say so.”

    rollingflower ,

    Luckily you seem to be alone at least in our sweet Lemmy bubble here

    BunkerBuster ,

    He mods his own conservative echo chamber at Lemm.ee. He doesn’t get any votes there either. He absolutely doesn’t care that he’s alone, which is a good thing I suppose because he absolutely is alone. His fellow mods call him out all the time.

    BatmanandRobin ,
    @BatmanandRobin@lemmy.today avatar

    You can’t write unpopular opinions here…

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    Batman & Robin is a good movie.

    …

    Seems to work fine for me.

    AbidanYre ,

    Don’t worry, I reported your comment. Now we just have to wait for the mods to get off their asses.

    MamboGator ,
    @MamboGator@lemmy.world avatar

    Someone REALLY doesn’t like Batman & Robin.

    AbidanYre ,

    Honestly I don’t think I ever even watched the Kilmer or Clooney movies.

    Based on the votes it seems like it’s a more popular movie than you gave it credit for.

    Cheems ,
    @Cheems@lemmy.world avatar

    Kiwi is better than pineapple on pizza

    xmunk ,

    Damn, throw some jalapeños on there and you might have a real winner.

    Cheems ,
    @Cheems@lemmy.world avatar

    Hot honey and bacon

    mp3 ,
    @mp3@lemmy.ca avatar

    Honestly I’d try that out.

    chemical_cutthroat ,
    @chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world avatar

    You are a bad person.

    NewPerspective ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    projectd ,

    She’s a hero, she’s the reason why everyone is talking about climate change - even my kids are trying to make better choices and saying they’ve learned about it because of her, they’ve never heard of you.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Yeah people here make fun of her.

    So what changes did your kids make because of her? I’m curious because most her rants are just we are killing people. What actionable item came from her rants ?

    projectd ,

    They are vegan, they get involved at their school on environmental improvements, they make sure they don’t waste etc. and they make sure to highlight the plight of the future to others.

    I honestly don’t know how you can look at Greta Thunberg and underestimate the impact she’s had on public discourse on climate change.

    In before trolls have a go at them for being vegan, this very respected recent meta analysis published in science clearly finds that going vegan is the number one thing you can do to help most climate change factors josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted M…

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Personally I’ll never go vegan. To each his own.

    I have seen zero impact due to her work. Zero.

    All I see if both sides making fun of her rants.

    She is the reason my kid stopped participating in climate events. She didn’t want to be associated with her.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Jesus, we are having this conversation because of her.

    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.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    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.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    her loud behaviour

    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.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    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.

    That number is much higher for young Republicans.

    It all depends on the wording. When we tell emissions. 50%

    thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/…/amp/

    For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree

    And how does that change anything ? It doesn’t.

    NewPerspective ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    The scientific consensus should change your mind if you’re on the fence and scientifically literate

    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.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    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

    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.

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    a question of morality that requires no science

    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.

    If you’re actually a published climate scientist

    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.

    projectd ,

    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 (…nasa.gov/…/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 ;).

    wintermute_oregon ,

    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

    forbes.com/…/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-10…

    I actively encourage you to read more on the 97% to understand the debate about it.

    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

    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.

    thus there may be less point in trying to fix i

    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.

    projectd ,

    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: skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.…

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I think your suggested solutions of focusing on air and water quality are great, though phasing out fossil fuels is a must

    That’s how you get to cleaner air.

    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”

    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

    projectd ,

    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 xkcd.com/1732/

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Isn’t that Cooks own website?

    projectd ,

    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.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    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.

    projectd ,

    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 skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.….

    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 en.wikipedia.org/…/Scientific_consensus_on_climat… 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.

    IzzyScissor ,

    People here are making fun of you, but you’re not letting that stop you, so you have that in common.

    Endorkend , (edited )
    @Endorkend@kbin.social avatar

    You need both.

    Some people won't ever hear anything about the issues until they see some weird kid do these stunts or see that someone their age can have a word in the discussion too.

    Others are more likely to pay attention to scientists, the type that read more intellectual literature.

    And then there's those who won't ever change their mind because they've been spoonfed corporate propaganda and thanks to religion and just generally being dumbasses, are perfectly primed to be managed in this way.

    NewPerspective ,

    If/When you snap like Mickey7, I’m going to smoke the biggest blunt in celebration.

    Olap ,

    What is the most downvoted comment on lemmy? Would you like a sense of pride and accomplishment?

    deft ,

    have a bad day bro

    catsarebadpeople , (edited )

    Can we ban this guy’s IP address or something? Everyone is stupider for having to be around them

    kabynbojski ,

    It looks like it may have already started to affect you.

    catsarebadpeople ,

    😅

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •