• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    So yes, I do agree with you that the large anti science wing of America wouldn’t warm to her, but they never would have

    I never said such a thing. Nice straw man.

    • projectd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re right, I apologise I didn’t represent your view fairly, we don’t fully agree, though I maintain we agree that America hasn’t fully embraced Greta.

      I disagree that it’s that no American politicians warm to her and her loud behaviour (which is what put her in the spotlight). Biden for example said to Trump: "What kind of president bullies a teenager? @realDonaldTrump, you could learn a few things from Greta on what it means to be a leader,”. Doesn’t sound like he’s too dismissive of Greta’s behaviour, does it?

      In fact, it’s generally down the left/right, truth/fiction party line, since Greta conveniently represents climate change/truth.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        her loud behaviour

        That’s part of her turn off but Americans in general don’t like others tell us what to do.

        Climate change is a complex topic as many people don’t want to admit it’s happening. To me it’s obvious it happening and arguing about the cause is stupid.

        Even if it’s not man made, nuclear power, solar power, electric cars, etc all help with the pollution and the environment. Everyone should be for that. It shouldn’t be political. It should be common sense.

        That’s why I dont like Greta. She puts the focus on her and make people polarized on the topic. The debate turns to her, rather than the solution.

        I’m not sure it’s man made or not. Doesn’t really matter to me. I’d rather live in a world with less pollution and less fracking.

        • projectd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nobody likes being told what to do, but when it affects others, it unfortunately becomes necessary, even for Americans. For example, if an someone wanted to punch you in the mouth or take your things, they would be told not to do that, as it affects others. If people affect billions of future lives through probably terrible choices, I’ll join in telling them what to do. I’m very big on liberty, but your liberty ends where mine begins.

          Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there’s little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.

          Climate change and its causes should only really be up for serious debate by climate scientists, as uninformed pundits with bad takes just convince idiots into conclusions which hurt all of us. However, I disagree with you about whether the cause is anthropogenic is important, as a misunderstanding of that truth steers the misinformed towards a resigned apathy that it’s not our fault and can’t be changed. For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree. It should be continually challenged and refined, but by people who have spent their lives studying it at the highest levels.

          That said, it’s great to hear of your wishes for reduced pollution, safer energy production and cleaner transport, as they are aligned with a better tomorrow.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            Most reasonable people admit climate change is happening, which is the disconnect with American republicans is (only a quarter consider it to be a major threat), and I think while protesters like Greta can help get the word around generally, there’s little way of reaching genuinely unreasonable people.

            That number is much higher for young Republicans.

            It all depends on the wording. When we tell emissions. 50%

            https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4349373-half-republicans-new-poll-support-biden-push-cut-emissions/amp/

            For the record, the cause is man made and more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree

            And how does that change anything ? It doesn’t.

            • projectd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s excellent news that younger republicans are more receptive to science - thanks for raising, I’ll check that out.

              The scientific consensus should change your mind if you’re on the fence and scientifically literate - unless you’re a climate scientist on the cutting edge of research and know something that 99% of the other climate scientists have got wrong, but haven’t quite finished convincing them! I think it’s because people misjudge the gap in understanding between a layperson and a climate scientist in ways that almost nobody does in other fields, perhaps because we can all look outside, feel weather and notice difference between seasons. You rarely hear of a layperson disagreeing with experts about microprocessor architecture, consumer electronics, space exploration, air travel, medtech like MRI machines, encryption, GPS - because the gap is understood. Unless you have a very accomplished and relevant history, deferring to scientific consensus is the only educated default.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                The scientific consensus should change your mind if you’re on the fence and scientifically literate

                Consensus also said homosexuality was a mental illness. Would you have agreed just because the scientist said 99.9% agree? I wouldn’t have.

                On any topic, you shouldn’t assume consensus is always right. You should read on the topic and try to understand the science.

                Scientist also suggested stupid things like carbon credits. It’s greenwashing.

                Whatever we do, it needs to be focused, sustainable and effective. We only get one shot at this to do it right.

                • projectd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  No, I like to think I also wouldn’t have agreed with consensus on homosexuality’s (remember that I don’t agree with consensus on eating animals, so I agree that blindly following a majority isn’t always the smart move.

                  However, you’ve fallen into two very specific traps - let me explain:

                  A) Homosexuality isn’t science, it’s morality - and we’ve seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history

                  B) Science is sometimes wrong, yes. However, we don’t know which as lay people are going to be wrong, so it would be as futile as randomly not trusting science on any of the other topics I mentioned (do you think they are doing MRI machines wrong?). On the contrary, anybody can understand and weigh in on moral topics. However, while you can read some pop science articles and listen to opinions about well-studied scientific topics, but you simply don’t have the extensive background to be informed enough to contribute anything but noise, doubt and misinformation to the conversation.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    A) Homosexuality isn’t science, it’s morality - and we’ve seen time and time again that the majority of people often fall on the wrong side of history

                    No it’s science. It’s an insult to say psychiatrist isn’t science. It’s a branch of medicine. We deal with mental health issues and when I started medical school that was around the time homosexuality we removed from the DSM which isn’t a morality book.

                    Margret Sanger pushed abortion to lower the black population due to her belief they were inferior.

                    That was morality. That was the scientific belief of the time.

                    I can go on and on but I think you get the point.

                    You may read pop science but I actually publish im journals. We are not the same.