Climate-sceptic think tank refuses to disclose funders
(www.theguardian.com)
from Wuzy@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 13 Nov 14:12
https://lemmy.world/post/38741578
from Wuzy@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 13 Nov 14:12
https://lemmy.world/post/38741578
#world
threaded - newest
YOU DONT SAY?!?
Read that as “septic think tank.”
ToMAYto, toMAHto
Eggsackly, it still fits well enough.
Well, it does say sceptic, hopefully the sepsis kills them soon.
Nah, mate. ‘Septics’ is a name for people in another country altogether.
me to. I like climate septic. It better describes that group.
Why didn’t they use a more flattering picture of her?
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/79658499-08f3-4aa7-a105-1c46816ce04a.jpeg">
I really hate when people call them “skeptics.”
They’re the dogmatic ones; there are multiple converging lines of evidence showing that man-made climate change is a real danger; to deny that is not skeptical, it’s delusional. It’s motivated reasoning. It’s believing a lie because the billionaire propaganda machine told you to believe it.
Not only billionaires. Scientists claim this is just a phase of the earth that has taken place many times in the past. Scientists are saying it, but are being drowned out or silenced. So there’s people saying this and people saying that, and it’s impossible for any one person to trust the words of anybody else in this very complex and complicated matter, with many, many stakeholders.
So the scientists who claim so aren’t being genuine, not being truthful, and they’ve moved the goalposts. And probably are real dicks at parties.
Other than that, bang-on.
The last time it happened wasn’t too long ago and things didn’t die off in droves as far as I understood.
These findings also say that carbon dioxide and methane gas aren’t the main causes for global warming and the climate change, as they weren’t the last time(s) either.
I’m not going to involve ad hominems here against either side (ahem), I’m just relaying the findings.
There are scientists saying this and there are scientists saying that, and that’s all we know until we deep dive into the studies to analyze and scrutinize them ourselves.
Science was wrong about sugar and fat for decades, too. No need to down vote here. I just think it’s important to take all findings into consideration before we sink trillions of dollars into changing the world into something that isn’t really helping. Or inventing things that might release less CO2 but release more toxins for other reasons, like electric cars e.g. (I say as an EV driver…)
Again, I’m not saying either side is wrong or right. But it’s important not to stigmatize being open to all the science. Stigmatizing isn’t scientific at all. That’s mob mentality and very dangerous.
There is no both sides here and pretending there is is wrong.
All the original research came from the petroleum companies themselves. It has since been confirmed by a consensus of scientists multiple times over the last six decades.
There is always doubt in science. This is a good thing. Using this doubt to pretend there is some other major consensus is disingenuous.
There’s not a significant amount of discourse suggesting that this is a natural cycle: news.cornell.edu/…/more-999-studies-agree-humans-…
Rhetoric like yours adds uncertainty where there is extremely little to be had.
These cycles also perpetrate over millennia, not decades, which is the current scope of detectable change we’re dealing with.
From NASA, used by earth.org:
<img alt="CO2 is about twice as high as it’s been in 800,000 years and rising more quickly than ever" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a00b2271-e3d0-4ecb-a005-840a5ae93682.webp">
Here, let me help.
Big Oil, a few Arab governments, some Saudi princes probably