this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023

790 points (96.0% liked)

World News

37166 readers

19 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

790

Climate change is a hoax /s (lemmy.ml)

submitted 11 months ago by kaptaan_jack@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ghostBones@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Climate change" is obsolete, now it's "climate crisis". I suppose after that it's climate collapse and then climate desolation.

[–] GataZapata@kbin.social 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Climate apocalypse pretty soon. Maybe climate collapse of society first, briefly

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'd say climate apocalypse and climate societal collapse are the same thing. Apocalypse doesn't mean extinction, otherwise how would we have a post-apocalyptic world?

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] TheFerrango@lemmy.basedcount.com 54 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Droggl@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except in germany noone would ever dare blame/restrict private cars in any way. See eg the ridiculous "discussion" on a potential highway speed limit. For non-germans: Yes, speed on highways is generally unrestricted and for some reason that seems to be more important to us than safety or protecting the climate.

[–] krzschlss@lemmy.fmhy.ml 17 points 11 months ago

Ya.. but you can't blame the poor volk. Since the war ended we've been praised for our Autobahns. Our Autobahns are the best and fastest and most reliablest, we are always on time and don't get me started on precision. Just how precise are we Germans? Who cares about enviroment, we are the best in something! Fuck nature. Like the boys from Kraftwerk sang:

♬
Autobahn
Autobahn
♬
Wir fahr'n, fahr'n, fahr'n, auf der Autobahn
Wir fahr'n, fahr'n, fahr'n, auf der Autobahn
♬

..it's a banger tho..

[–] dummbatz@feddit.de 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unless you’re German, in which case this is exactly what happened.

It's not what happened.

Nuclear power got replaced by renewable energy. Gas was mainly needed for heating (~50 % of households use gas, ~25 % use oil) and the industry (steel, glas....), much less for power. Germany even reduced their gas consumption heavily. The gas used for power is roughly the same amount as before shutting down npp.

[–] rentar42@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except fossil fuel production went UP when "renewable replaced nuclear".

While renewable was built out quite a bit and nuclear was decreased at roughly the same time, total demand has risen (as it tends to do) and that delta was filled by more fossil fuel production.

IMO (and many other peoples) the climate-positive approach would have been to keep nuclear, while building out renewables and phasing out fossil. And then try to build more renewables to get rid of nuclear, if that's still desired.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Machinist3359@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago

Nuclear (+ renewables) powering walkable cities ftw.

Not even just for the climate, we'd probably cut asthma and a dozen cancer rates with the clean air.

[–] GataZapata@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

How exactly has Germany restricted private cars? And if they are so restricted, why are they still 20% of our emissions? https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/emissionen-des-verkehrs (correction: private cars 12, transport lorries 8)

Also here is the current mix of energy sources https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html

Germany has chosen renewable over nuclear. I am glad we did. I am not happy they restored some coal, but if you compare to earlier levels also visible in the article, you will see an overall reduction. Leaving out that we have been phasing out nuclear during the last 15 or so years to build more renewable and then being like 'look, no nuclear, such a lack of responsibility!' smh

Your comment seems intended to agitate international readers with false portrayal of facts and glossing over stuff via sarcasm. Shame on that kind of behavior just to push your views.

[–] capy_bara@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Build nuclear AND restrict cars

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] filister@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While also having one of the highest energy prices in Europe.

But seriously we should try to cut the percentage of our electricity that is being produced by coal. This should be our first priority, even if it means to temporarily replace it with gas. Then gas emissions are once again on the rise due to the general trend of producing ever bigger cars.

Meat consumption and deforestation, combined with higher risk of wild fires, etc.

I hope in the future we manage to create sustainable nuclear fusion reactor and we ditch all non renewable energy sources.

[–] ydieb@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A high carbon tax would fit perfectly. Introduce it at the start of the system such that it directly affects those that pollute the most, and vice versa.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] cmoney@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So even if climate change isn't real (which obviously it is.) What's the down side? We invest in renewable energy, not pollute as much. Oh the horror!

[–] cerevant@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Because the people who made money investing in the old way stop making money. That’s it. That’s the entire problem. The fossil fuels industry wants to keep making money, and the politicians who are bribed by them want to keep getting bribes. So they create a culture war so the facts don’t matter.

[–] ShortShiftingT@feddit.ch 11 points 11 months ago

I'd add that especially in developed countries, we have gotten used to the high energy-density of fossil fuels, which is the result of millions of years of pressure, temperature or in short: energy. And we are using up this energy within two centuries. This resulted in the unsustainable lifestyle (it's everywhere we look), that would have to be curbed, if we were to get off this Jurassic Park Experiment completely.

Therefore a number of people see their very (unsustainable) way of life in jeopardy. This source of resistance is what gives that culture war BS its fuel in the first place. At least in my experience of talking with people it is this negative emotional place that leads them to embrace false information in order to keep their lifestyles. Which in turn makes cooperation impossible. To make it even worse, people in developing countries now aspire to the same lifestyle - and who can blame them? But I don't trust their (or ours for that matter) politics enough to hope for scientifically sound action to get there.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Which is just blatantly straight up evil. They are evil people destroying people's lives for profit. And everyone is just hunky-dory with it.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

I've said for years that the deniers and fossil fuel barons will be looked upon by future generations as some of history's greatest villains. They will be seen in much the same light as a Hitler or Stalin or Mao.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] flames5123@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

We’re fucked.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I think the conservatives don’t disagree that climate change is real, they disagree that humans are responsible. To them it’s things like El Niño or solar activity.

[–] HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

No, there are a lot of conservatives that think it’s entirely made up

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Symptoms of climate change are getting harder and harder to ignore. The goalposts are moving slowly, not towards any kind of constructive action mind you. Soon they'll get to "Of course it's man-made, but there's nothing we can do".

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My dad switched from saying it isn't real to saying he'll be dead soon so he won't have to experience it.

Jokes on him: it's happening faster than he thought. He's getting to experience it anyway.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My dad switched from saying it isn’t real to saying he’ll be dead soon so he won’t have to experience it.

Ask him if he cares about the world that his kids and grand-kids will have to live in, or is he just a selfish asshole.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I did ask that, and it took the conversation to a bizarre place.

When I asked if he cared what happened to his kids or grandkids, he asked if I believed in God.

I said no, and asked what that had to do with anything. He said, if I believed in God, I'd go to heaven.

So, that's his suggestion: suffer through a miserable, doomed existence, and then go to heaven when you die.

Things that I found interesting from that:

He pretends to be a Christian, but he is filled with hate and just wants to pick fights with everyone. I think he doesn't actually know anything about what being Christian is, other than if you're not, you burn in hell for all eternity.
My mom, whose beliefs generally align fairly closely with his, does not want to cause trouble, unlike him. So, while he immediately tries to start shit, she'll avoid topics that will result in argument. She will certainly avoid asking questions if she doesn't want to hear the answer. So, she visibly cringed when he asked if I believed in God, because she knew what was coming next.

Lots of teenagers dramatically accuse their parents of being fascists, but in my case, he's the real thing. He's not quite a Nazi, but if they came to power in the U.S. he'd be goose-stepping along with them. He idolizes Nazi Germany, but pretty much considers modern Nazis to be pathetic losers.

In the strange, twisted world of child/parent relationships, I'm stuck. I know what he is, but he's also my father. I'm twisted up. I know he loves me, and I love him, but I hate what he is if that makes any sense.

My wife and my kids can't stand him, but everything I have and most of what they have comes from him. He knows that I disagree with him about almost everything he cares about, but if I go to him for help, he'll help without question and without strings attached.

He wasn't always this bad. He had been better for years, but then as he has declined physically and can't pretend he's young anymore, he became more miserable, and I think he wants everyone else to be miserable too.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And they're wrong according to virtually every person who actually studies the climate for a living, so they might as well pretend it's made up.

And it's stupid anyway. You might be able to deny human-caused climate change, but you can't deny smog and pollution. Greener energy sources mean less smog and pollution. Why isn't that a good thing to them?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

It's a fundamental lack of understanding of math and science.

There's a video going around conservative circles talking about how CO2 only makes up .04 percent of the atmosphere, and therefore even if it were doubled it would be less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere, so it's not worth worrying about.

I tried to explain to my father that that's exactly why we're able to have such an impact. They don't understand that we're able to make a much larger relative impact on CO2 versus Nitrogen and Oxygen and therefore a larger impact on global temperatures.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

It's actually a spectrum of disavowal of responsibility:

It's not happening.
Even if it is happening, it's not our fault.
Even if it is our fault, there is nothing we can do.
Even if there is something we can do, it's too late to do anything.

It's just that the first stage (denialism) is starting to become untenable.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] fietsbel@feddit.nl 16 points 11 months ago

looking @ the conservatise political programs, they realize people will die due to climate change, but their solution is more babies (ergo, forbid women to stop/prevent pregancy), not stopping climate change...

please keep voting on them /s

[–] Mog_Spawn@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

[–] arin@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (7 children)

The world is literally on fire

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] Uphillbothways@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

The dead walk. Zombies have arrived. They are us.

[–] Ozzy@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yippie! I love global warming!!!!! Thank you big corporations you are so cool!

[–] arin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Way beyond warming, it's global roasting

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 9 points 11 months ago

I'm not fully convinced yet.. maybe if it was four weeks with records broken every day, then I'd really consider changing my mind. But probably not because it was all made up by Al Gore.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why is the world so much hotter during the Northern Hemisphere summer?

[–] krzyz@szmer.info 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

As far as I know that's mostly because there's much more land in the Northern Hemisphere and the temperature differences (day/night but also summer/winter) are much more pronounced over the land than over the sea: the land heats and cools faster.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Thanks buddy! Wow on Lemmy people actually answer your questions that come late in the thread. Incredible.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments