4 ms·

Yeah they rallied around it since the alternative is to just put everyone on an equal platform. Gatekeeping is good in areas like climate science where certain

Yeah they rallied around it since the alternative is to just put everyone on an equal platform. Gatekeeping is good in areas like climate science where certain groups have a large incentive to spew demonstrably false information about it.

encryptluks2 4y ago
Gatekeeping is not good, providing education and insight is good. If you gatekeep then you are essentially advocating for propaganda because that is how it will be used and has been used.
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  That might work when you’re not talking about advertising. The vested interests in the status quo are the most profitable organizations in the world. How can the average citizen or “save the climate group” compete?
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Corruption won't go away through censorship. It will only make it worse. The best solution IMO is for truth and transparency and to have honest leaders shift focus to education.
_3u10 4y ago
What group doesn’t have a vested interest to spew demonstrably false information about it? Climate change isn’t science it’s mostly politics around preserving or not preserving the temperatures and sea levels from when the steam engine was invented. Like I believe the climate is changing, but we should do almost nothing about it. That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property.
- throwaway15908 4y ago
  Consider it like this. Sustainability is _only_ a waste management system that enables recycling rates of 90% or higher (which is damn hard). CO2 is also just one of many waste products, we totally dont care about, but _must_ to sustain our civilisation. No politics, just input/output, same goal.
  - _3u10 4y ago
    The earth has had higher CO2 levels… and had much more biodiversity when it did. If anything for a sustainable world for life we should probably be targeting the 800ppm of the Carboniferous and not the 200ppm of the little ice age. Can you tell me why from a sustainability perspective why 200ppm is the ideal? Or if 200ppm is not the ideal what is the sustainable ideal, and why civilization collapses if we don’t reach that target? I mean the totality of civilization not just that Buckingham palace or a few other places might be underwater? Like why can’t we build ports a little inland from Amsterdam? Why can Paraguayans survive 40C but civilization collapses if Europe goes above 27C.
    - throwaway15908 4y ago
      >Why are 200ppm sustainable? The higher CO2 levels of long gone times where probably not even remotely a problem for those critters around, because evolution had plenty of time to do its thing. Your whole point of "but what about back then" is comparing apples with oranges. Looking at the steep graph today, the increasing weather extremes and how brittle our supply chains are, i think its very appropriate to call it a climate catastrophe, we are heading for. Btw. I was using the ideal of perfect recycling and applied it to CO2, no absolute or relative ppm value is relevant for this.
- spidersouris 4y ago
  > That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property. Are you implying that those who are the most concerned about climate change are wealthy people afraid to lose their possessions? How do you explain then that the wealthiest people, that is those possessing the greatest number of companies and contributing the most to climate change, are those that will do the least for climate change and will even fight to maintain the current economic model?

encryptluks2 4y ago

Gatekeeping is not good, providing education and insight is good. If you gatekeep then you are essentially advocating for propaganda because that is how it will be used and has been used.

alphabettsy 4y ago
That might work when you’re not talking about advertising. The vested interests in the status quo are the most profitable organizations in the world. How can the average citizen or “save the climate group” compete?
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Corruption won't go away through censorship. It will only make it worse. The best solution IMO is for truth and transparency and to have honest leaders shift focus to education.

_3u10 4y ago

What group doesn’t have a vested interest to spew demonstrably false information about it? Climate change isn’t science it’s mostly politics around preserving or not preserving the temperatures and sea levels from when the steam engine was invented. Like I believe the climate is changing, but we should do almost nothing about it. That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property.

throwaway15908 4y ago
Consider it like this. Sustainability is _only_ a waste management system that enables recycling rates of 90% or higher (which is damn hard). CO2 is also just one of many waste products, we totally dont care about, but _must_ to sustain our civilisation. No politics, just input/output, same goal.
- _3u10 4y ago
  The earth has had higher CO2 levels… and had much more biodiversity when it did. If anything for a sustainable world for life we should probably be targeting the 800ppm of the Carboniferous and not the 200ppm of the little ice age. Can you tell me why from a sustainability perspective why 200ppm is the ideal? Or if 200ppm is not the ideal what is the sustainable ideal, and why civilization collapses if we don’t reach that target? I mean the totality of civilization not just that Buckingham palace or a few other places might be underwater? Like why can’t we build ports a little inland from Amsterdam? Why can Paraguayans survive 40C but civilization collapses if Europe goes above 27C.
  - throwaway15908 4y ago
    >Why are 200ppm sustainable? The higher CO2 levels of long gone times where probably not even remotely a problem for those critters around, because evolution had plenty of time to do its thing. Your whole point of "but what about back then" is comparing apples with oranges. Looking at the steep graph today, the increasing weather extremes and how brittle our supply chains are, i think its very appropriate to call it a climate catastrophe, we are heading for. Btw. I was using the ideal of perfect recycling and applied it to CO2, no absolute or relative ppm value is relevant for this.
spidersouris 4y ago
> That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property. Are you implying that those who are the most concerned about climate change are wealthy people afraid to lose their possessions? How do you explain then that the wealthiest people, that is those possessing the greatest number of companies and contributing the most to climate change, are those that will do the least for climate change and will even fight to maintain the current economic model?