A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
“There’s no ambiguity about the data,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So really, it’s a question of attribution.”
Understanding what specific physical processes are behind these temperature records will help scientists improve their climate models and better predict temperatures in the future.
Sorry, but you'll need to bring evidence for that kind of statement
Like every scientific journal/report/study since back to 20 years ago? And since the current data is so much worse than original models, all of this below is understating the serverity.
Frankly I just think youre a troll, or head stuck in the ground not wanting to face reality.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426332/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426332/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125187
The opposite is true. If you want to credibly assert that fossil fuel consumption at the point of extraction can be controlled by consumer behavior it is you who needs to bring evidence.
Even discounting that boycotts cannot work without accompanying violence.
When the plastics industry, an industry concerned with the mere byproducts of fossil fuel extraction, realized that public opinion was turning against their products, they created a multibillion dollar campaign to convince everyone that those plastics were fine and would be recycled even though the technology was never available or cost effective for large scale use and all that plastic waste was just getting dumped in landfills and shipped across the ocean to foreign landfills.
That misinformation was the accepted wisdom for thirty years.
That’s what the industry concerned with the unavoidable byproducts of extraction and refinement of fossil fuels did when everyone started to turn against them after literal decades of grassroots propaganda around litter.
They gaslit the world into believing that it was okay to use plastics for packaging because they could be recycled.
Even if you still believe that you and all your friends can change the course of the main event, the most powerful wealth extraction industry ever known in human history, and keep from being turned against each other, made into pariahs, expelled from society and keep the points of your own knives aimed away from yourselves simply by deciding not to buy fossil fuels, what do you think they’re gonna do?
They’ll just load em up in a tanker and send em over to a place where someone will.
And sell you plastic doodads that run on electricity that is still made by burning fossil fuels.
I don’t need to provide evidence that we can’t change the path of the extractive industries with boycotts, I’ve spent my whole life living in the outcome of that reality.
In short, you're sealioning.
I don’t know what that means.
You made a claim, I said nuh uh, you said prove it, I said you ought to be proving your claim since the entirety of history about your claim in the broadest sense shows the opposite, in the specific sense you’re making it we have an example of your claim being wrong in our living memories and even if somehow your claim were actually true it wouldn’t lead to the result you try to show.
Put up or shut up. Explain how showing people around you that it’s possible to live without fossil fuels will change behavior in aggregate.
So you have no evidence for your position.
If it’s not clear that I have provided plenty of evidence:
You said
I said nuh uh, you said prove it and I said
I showed evidence that boycotts won’t work. Show me evidence that they will.
Yup, youre just a troll
So let's summarize:
If you had evidence, you'd have shown it by now. But you don't.
Except I already did provide evidance/links, never claimed you needed to provide evidance (though you never did provide any to back up your claims).
So yeah, above is wildly untrue.
Troll.
And now you pretend to have had evidence. You didn't
Check the post times.
Troll.
Indeed you are.
:(