this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1624 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39099 readers
2086 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] johnlobo@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

and people say global warming/climate change is not real

[–] Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not simply a climate change. It's a coined term by the fossil fuel industry. Like BP introduced the individual carbon footprint, this one should also be ignored. It's a climate crisis.

[–] Rufio@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politicians and publications that acknowledge the climate crisis should probably start using that term instead of climate change then.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if that is used intentionally? Like they would have a reason to make a narrative of denial?

[–] Rufio@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It’s because the “fact” the the fossil fuel industry coined the term climate change is false.

This is the preferred term by scientists, and it has been since before “global warming” became a term.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I was being cynical. I'm fully aware of their hellbent ideologies.

[–] Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let's be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.

[–] Techmaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's called climate change because it's more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they're all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.

[–] Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. Global warming is one aspect of many of our current climate crisis. And it will become worse when politics won't restrict the reign of fossil fuel industries.

[–] Rufio@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The fossil fuel industry denied climate change was happening at all for a long time after the term was being used by scientists.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

We used to call it The Greenhouse Effect but that was way too scary so BP gave us this bs instead

[–] Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it does not imply Natural causes. There is zero (implied or explicit) information as to why the change is happening. It is merely stating a fact.

[–] Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I seem to have issues trying to convey my intention when I am highlighting why these industries use the term climate change now. I try it once more.

'Climate is changing. It is something that has always happened. It's natural. Climate change is completely normal.' That is the implied meaning, especially by fossil fuel industries, which more than often try to shift the blame away from them by either making it a personal issue (carbon footprint) or describing it as a natural occurance. Intentionally ignoring their influence by burning resources and releasing damaging gases, raising temperatures, melting ice, damaging the saline conveyor belt.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, that is indeed the case.

[–] Maya_Weiss@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Oh they are switching from "Its not real" to "its all over, we can't do anything, so invest in fossils even more" (the invest part is an exaggeration). I want to believe that most of those messages are from paid actors (oil industry, authoritarian regimes).

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Personally I think it’s far too late. I’m not having children and my friends and family who do are scared; here in Australia there’s no where to go to escape the heat. We will all die here

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know, in many parts of the world dying from decapitation is much more probable. Or just, eh, rapid lead poisoning combined with mechanical damage to your internal organs.

First world panic is something else really. Humans can live in orbit and on Mars FFS. Cooling the living spaces is not an unsolvable problem even in Australia.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scientists: The average temperature across the world is rapidly approaching the point of no return on the planet becoming uninhabitable and we have no feasible way to avoid it.

You: Just crank the AC lmao.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm mostly talking about the panicking tone of that comment.

Also about feasible ways - the goal is to find an economically feasible replacement for the processes leading to such emissions. Or create an ecofascist world government which will force everyone to behave.

The average of those two is not a goal, as it doesn't solve the problem.

So - either we make it cheaper and easier for people in Equatorial Africa, Afghanistan etc to use "green" technologies, or we are fucked, unless conquering the whole planet is back on the menu.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, rereading I now see what your intent.

Perhaps "feasible" wasn't the word I was looking for so much as "realistic." It's going to be an uphill battle convincing profit-based companies to produce a cheap, green alternative but I'd love to be proven wrong. Short of fascism I do think government nudging of the market through grants etc is something we sorely need to get moving on, because money is the only thing that speaks to these giant faceless corporations.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

Nudging - yes, grants - no.

I'd personally just like some weakening of patent, IP, trademark etc laws. We are at a point when these work for companies too big to not be malicious.

Anyway, the cheap green alternative is called a nuclear reactor. I've read there are some smaller, more compact models in testing.