4 ms·

I'm on that boat. Though no one denies that the climate changes (but rather argue the about degree of human contribution and climate warming), destroying the be

I'm on that boat. Though no one denies that the climate changes (but rather argue the about degree of human contribution and climate warming), destroying the beauty of nature and polluting the environment should go against global human conscience.

melling 1y ago
“The climate is always changing” Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles. They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly… You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I think it's imbecile for self-righteous people to not spare a few moments of patience to politely try to correct those who were exposed to wrong information that caters to their bias. It's almost guaranteed that you also believe some sort of ridiculous conspiracy or bias, just like everyone else. Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
  - melling 1y ago
    I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc. Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see. Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next? What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
    - hereme888 1y ago
      You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
      - melling 1y ago
        Did you know whether you are kind or insult them, you aren’t going to change their minds? The insult tends to leave a sting, and I’ve noticed people are less likely to add their misinformation the next time. At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss? Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
        hereme888 1y ago
        I thought my hinted answers were clear: the climate is always changing, hence the terminology is imprecise compared to the previous, specific "Global Warming". It fuels conspiracies. The science itself is difficult, and at times has been admittedly imprecise or biased. The overzealous politicians are given an alarmist presentation, and in turn propose exaggerated solutions that threaten current livelihoods. Instead of addressing specific points during airtime, people fall back to some imprecise political comment on the matter, itself fueling distrust because the average person, while "less educated", is still sharp.
        melling 1y ago
        Which alarmism would you like to discuss? Can’t be vague if you want to address a problem. Another tendency is to complain about current policies without offering any solutions.
Krssst 1y ago
> destroying the beauty of nature and polluting the environment should go against global human conscience. I don't think beauty has anything to do with it. Climate change has very negative concrete effects on human civilization that justify the effort we should put (but don't) into limiting it. Generally pollution is nocive to human health which is why we strive to avoid it too. I think talking about "beauty" moves the debate away from rational arguments. The reason we do all this is to preserve a world where humans can have comfortable lives, without additional health risks adding up and with enough access to necessities (food, water, shelter, breathable air compatible with human survival (never too long above 35C wet-bulb)).

melling 1y ago

“The climate is always changing” Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles. They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly… You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.

hereme888 1y ago
I think it's imbecile for self-righteous people to not spare a few moments of patience to politely try to correct those who were exposed to wrong information that caters to their bias. It's almost guaranteed that you also believe some sort of ridiculous conspiracy or bias, just like everyone else. Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
- melling 1y ago
  I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc. Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see. Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next? What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
  - hereme888 1y ago
    You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
    - melling 1y ago
      Did you know whether you are kind or insult them, you aren’t going to change their minds? The insult tends to leave a sting, and I’ve noticed people are less likely to add their misinformation the next time. At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss? Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
      - hereme888 1y ago
        I thought my hinted answers were clear: the climate is always changing, hence the terminology is imprecise compared to the previous, specific "Global Warming". It fuels conspiracies. The science itself is difficult, and at times has been admittedly imprecise or biased. The overzealous politicians are given an alarmist presentation, and in turn propose exaggerated solutions that threaten current livelihoods. Instead of addressing specific points during airtime, people fall back to some imprecise political comment on the matter, itself fueling distrust because the average person, while "less educated", is still sharp.
        melling 1y ago
        Which alarmism would you like to discuss? Can’t be vague if you want to address a problem. Another tendency is to complain about current policies without offering any solutions.

Krssst 1y ago

> destroying the beauty of nature and polluting the environment should go against global human conscience. I don't think beauty has anything to do with it. Climate change has very negative concrete effects on human civilization that justify the effort we should put (but don't) into limiting it. Generally pollution is nocive to human health which is why we strive to avoid it too. I think talking about "beauty" moves the debate away from rational arguments. The reason we do all this is to preserve a world where humans can have comfortable lives, without additional health risks adding up and with enough access to necessities (food, water, shelter, breathable air compatible with human survival (never too long above 35C wet-bulb)).