Follow

US politics Show more

Web 6 31 33

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

re: US politics Show more

US politics Show more

US politics Show more

@switchingsocial @masterofthetiger @celesteh science doesn't work like this, science is not scientism, so please don't try to push your opinion with "it's science, stop discussing". There are scientists that say that global warming is normal and not caused by human activity, one of them won a Nobel prize for physics 馃槈 so please hear opinions by others and stop promoting an idea as truth because "science says so", this is really not how science works.

@alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

If you're asking for 100% agreement from all scientists before forming a consensus, you will never form a consensus about anything. It's not really a practical suggestion.

On this particular topic, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that global warming is real, is dangerous and is man-made.

If the overwhelming majority of cancer specialists told someone they had cancer, that person would seek treatment instead of waiting for 100% consenus.

@switchingsocial @alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

The problem is, that for the people who don't believe global warming is real/man-made, an overwhelming majority of the scientists that they listen to agree that it's a hoax/natural. It's essentially a filter bubble/confirmation bias problem.

@switchingsocial @alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

To play devil's advocate, I'll point out that most people agreeing on something doesn't make it true. Personally I believe that climate change is real and man made, however in other areas of science I've been involved with I've seen broad scale financial interests change the culture which changed most scientists unconscious beliefs which is then reflected in published research biases.

@Blort @alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

In this particular case the dominant financial interests have deliberately suppressed evidence of man-made global warming, even after they themselves concluded it was true:

scientificamerican.com/article

Denying climate change is far more financially lucrative than confirming it.

Scientific consensus doesn't automatically make something true, but it does make it the most likely option to be true. Scientists have a better track record than non-scientists.

@Blort @alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

Exxon decided they would prefer the arctic to melt because it would make it easier to access oil, and started increasing the height of their oil platforms to take account of rising sea levels (about half-way through the article):

newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11

"Not only did Exxon and other companies know that scientists like Hansen were right; they used his NASA climate models to figure out how low their drilling costs in the Arctic would eventually fall."

@switchingsocial @alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

Part of the problem is that science (yes, even in publicly funded universities) as a whole, is an industry not a platonic ideal made real. It's given us many, many advancements, but it tends to do so disproportionally in the direction of the interests of established power structures, especially financial ones. Thus innovation in tech gadgets far surpasses innovation in humanitarian issues.$

@Blort @switchingsocial @masterofthetiger @celesteh

Yes and this could be confirmed by the fact that mass media talk about climate changes but not microplastics (that of course are caused by us and can be reduced by changing habits and technology) or about the impact of animal products.

Instead often people talking about CC don't know they should be vegan and avoiding synthetic fiber to make a difference.

@alexl @Blort @masterofthetiger @celesteh

Going vegan is actually a good way to fight climate change, vegan food generates less CO2 than animal products 馃憤

@switchingsocial @Blort @masterofthetiger @celesteh

For sure, but I wanted to stress the paradox of media informing about climate changes but at the same time avoiding possible solutions (assuming CC are caused by us). This is also suspicious.

Instead CC shouldn't really be an argument for going vegan for philosophical reasons (immorality of indirect arguments) and I hope my message was not intended this way.

@switchingsocial @masterofthetiger @celesteh no, I'm not talking about 100% consensus, we are far from being sure global warming is caused by humans, see for example studies about mountains releasing CO2. Also consider that climate changes are really a weak argument for reducing pollution, there are in fact very direct effects of it and also CO2 is still less dangerous than particulates, microplastics, nanoparticles and other form of pollution by us...

@alexl @masterofthetiger @celesteh

We are actually pretty sure global warming is caused by humans, that's what scientific consensus means.

All you're doing is focusing on the small number of exceptions to the consensus, which means you will never be satisfied until it's 100% (which will never happen for any topic).

Climate change is a very strong argument for reducing pollution, because warming will cook our planet. Large areas will become uninhabitable, leading to wars over what is left.

@switchingsocial @masterofthetiger @celesteh

No, I know how science works and in this particular case there isn't consensus on climate changes, I checked papers by myself and in certain cases mathematical models used as "proof" are ridiculous.

I don't know if human activity is linked to climate changes, but I'm sure we have few reasons to think so and we can't promote this as "science" but it's just a gigantic marketing campaign.

@alexl @switchingsocial @masterofthetiger

I lie awake at night in fear. What if we cut pollution, quit doing mountaintop removal, switch to renewable energy? What if we make our coastlines safer, our skies clearer and protect our wilderness? What if we do all those things and it turns out climate change isn't real? We'll have made a better world for nothing. 馃槩

In the mean time, I'm going to fight for carbon reduction because my home state is burning.

@celesteh @switchingsocial @masterofthetiger

You are assuming that lying will lead to better results than seeking and spreading the truth. I've doubts about it.

And what if, on the other hand, trying to fight climate changes that we can not stop we'll ignore important issues such as animal farming, desertification, deforestation, microplastics, nanoparticles, antimicrobial resistance etc etc?

@celesteh @switchingsocial @masterofthetiger

Also, please that my lifestyle is already much less impacting than that of the average citizen of developed countries, where there is much talk about climate change.

All the time I met people mentioning CCs but very few of them follow a plant based diet, that I do because of empathy for the not humans.

Why spend so much energy talking about climate change but without talking about a plant-based diet?

@celesteh @alexl @switchingsocial @masterofthetiger - 饾憖饾憸饾憼饾憽 饾憸饾憮 饾憿饾憼 饾憥饾憯饾憻饾憭饾憭 饾憽鈩庰潙庰潙 饾憥饾憪饾憽饾憱饾憸饾憶 饾憶饾憭饾憭饾憫饾憼 饾憽饾憸 饾憦饾憭 饾憽饾憥饾憳饾憭饾憶 饾憽饾憸 饾憥饾憫饾憫饾憻饾憭饾憼饾憼 饾憪饾憴饾憱饾憵饾憥饾憽饾憭 饾憪鈩庰潙庰潙涴潙旔潙, 饾憦饾憿饾憽 饾懁鈩庰潙掟潙 饾憱饾憽 饾憪饾憸饾憵饾憭饾憼 饾憽饾憸 饾憵饾憸饾懀饾憱饾憶饾憯 饾憽饾憸 饾憥 饾憵饾憭饾憥饾憽-饾憮饾憻饾憭饾憭 饾憫饾憱饾憭饾憽 饾憽饾憸 饾憫饾憻饾憥饾憼饾憽饾憱饾憪饾憥饾憴饾憴饾懄 饾憻饾憭饾憫饾憿饾憪饾憭 饾憭饾憵饾憱饾憼饾憼饾憱饾憸饾憶饾憼, 饾憼饾憿饾憫饾憫饾憭饾憶饾憴饾懄 饾懁饾憭'饾憻饾憭 饾憶饾憸饾憽 饾憼饾憸 饾憳饾憭饾憭饾憶, 饾懁饾憻饾憱饾憽饾憭饾憼 饾憛饾憿饾憦饾懄 饾惢饾憥饾憵饾憥饾憫.

abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/ham

What happened to Charles' "fight for carbon reduction" as soon as a plant based diet was brought up? This is the problem.

@mh suddenly I can't see anymore @celesteh 's post nor any other thing on his profile 馃槷 is it a block or a Mastodon bug?

@alexl @celesteh - It's a block. He's posting about not having time to argue with people who are snug about their ignorance. Oh, the irony!

I think this is a case of cognitive dissonance. He's a perfect example of what the article I linked to pointed out. Most of us simply aren't willing to compromise the entitlement of eating meat, so we pretend that the idea of a worldwide shift to a plant-based diet is simply too ridiculous to contemplate. 饾憞鈩庰潙庰潙'饾憼 饾憱饾憮 饾懁饾憭 饾憭饾懀饾憭饾憶 饾憥饾憪饾憳饾憶饾憸饾懁饾憴饾憭饾憫饾憯饾憭 饾憽鈩庰潙 饾憪饾憻饾憱饾憼饾憱饾憼 饾憥饾憽 饾憥饾憴饾憴.

@mh

Yes, it's cognitive dissonance. But I'm confident that this dissemination work is not useless and that the information that an individual receives over time will add up to determine a change of habit at the end

US politics Show more

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

mastodon.at is a microblogging site that federates with most instances on the Fediverse.