During COP26, Facebook Served Ads With Climate Falsehoods, Skepticism (reuters.com) 175
Facebook advertisers promoted false and misleading claims about climate change on the platform in recent weeks, just as the COP26 conference was getting under way. From a report: Days after Facebook's vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, touted the company's efforts to combat climate misinformation in a blog as the Glasgow summit began, conservative media network Newsmax ran an ad on Facebook (FB.O) that called man-made global warming a "hoax." The ad, which had multiple versions, garnered more than 200,000 views.
In another, conservative commentator Candace Owens said, "apparently we're just supposed to trust our new authoritarian government" on climate science, while a U.S. libertarian think-tank ran an ad on how "modern doomsayers" had been wrongly predicting climate crises for decades. Newsmax, Owens and the Daily Wire, which paid for the ad from Owens's page, did not respond to requests for comment. Facebook, which recently changed its name to Meta, does not have a specific policy on climate misinformation in ads or unpaid posts. Alphabet's Google said last month it would no longer allow ads that contradict scientific consensus on climate change on YouTube and its other services, though it would allow content that discusses false claims.
In another, conservative commentator Candace Owens said, "apparently we're just supposed to trust our new authoritarian government" on climate science, while a U.S. libertarian think-tank ran an ad on how "modern doomsayers" had been wrongly predicting climate crises for decades. Newsmax, Owens and the Daily Wire, which paid for the ad from Owens's page, did not respond to requests for comment. Facebook, which recently changed its name to Meta, does not have a specific policy on climate misinformation in ads or unpaid posts. Alphabet's Google said last month it would no longer allow ads that contradict scientific consensus on climate change on YouTube and its other services, though it would allow content that discusses false claims.
Haha. (Score:3, Insightful)
Join the club, adding to the plethora of falsehoods at cop26 itself.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:5, Insightful)
In another, conservative commentator Candace Owens said, "apparently we're just supposed to trust our new authoritarian government" on climate science, while a U.S. libertarian think-tank ran an ad on how "modern doomsayers" had been wrongly predicting climate crises for decades.
Humanity will never cease to amaze with our ability to deny what's in our faces, till our suffering can't be hand-waved away as someone else's manipulation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump said it was false. That's good enough for 50% of the population.
Re: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:2, Flamebait)
And AOC said the world will end by Jan 2031 unless communism. Enough people believed that...you're probably one of them or know someone who is.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link to back this one up? I mean, she's said some retrograde stupid shit, but this one is something I hadn't heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump said it was false. That's good enough for 50% of the population.
Roughly 25% who will believe it's false because Trump said it was false, and 25% who will believe it's true because Trump said it was false.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is dire enough without having to embellish it.
That's true, especially because things keep winding up worse than the median projections.
now I know for a FACT that I can no longer trust my government on climate science
You don't know much.
Re:Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:2)
And yet you are not actually using science, just basing decisions on a willful misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not only wrong but absolutely and completely wrong.
Re: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:2)
Re: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...just....wow.
I guess you're right technically, what was the old saying "Well, at least Mussolini had the trains running on time..."
Have you not read history and seen
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why anyone would quote Osho.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an investment. It won't just save us money, there will be a return.
Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
During COP26, Facebook Served Ads With Climate Falsehoods, Skepticism
Oh no ... not ... skepticism!!!
Death to the infidels!
We can't be too vigilant. Relax for a moment, and we might have free speech breaking out or something!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Like billions of climate migrants, resource wars and more bad.
This is pure speculation presented as facts. Climate models do not support your doomsday predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't predict the opposite either.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Informative)
Your thoughts on the data presented in this nice graphic?
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
No models needed there to see the temperature curve from 1900 to 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate models support those conclusions if we do nothing, and especially if the developing world follows in our footsteps as it industrializes.
Sea levels will rise, and large parts of the Earth will become uninhabitable due to heat. A lot of farmland will become unusable. As people start to migrate it creates a domino effect. Large numbers of migrants bring problems, driving people away from those areas too. Viable land is stripped by people desperate for food and clean water, making them uninhabitable too
Re: Oh no! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> there has been considerable greening (ie viable from space) of the Sahara
Can't find anything saying it's getting greener. Do you have any links? What I found says it was greener ~15000 years ago, it's maybe going to be greener in ~12000 years, and today there's ongoing increase in desertification:
The Sahara Desert Is Growing https://www.livescience.com/62... [livescience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>in fact there has been considerable greening (ie viable from space) of the Sahara ... try Google
Your link has a few hypotheticals but nothing about a current greening, from anywhere, considerable or not, of the Sahara.
Could you please just link directly to what you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Like billions of climate migrants, resource wars and more bad.
This is pure speculation presented as facts. Climate models do not support your doomsday predictions.
That is because climate models are only intended to model climate, not phenomena such as agriculture, economics, and politics, that are affected by climate change. Climate change is likely to cause floods and droughts, and long term crop failure. This is already observable. People will leave their homeland rather than stay and starve. You can call that "pure speculation" if you like, but I would call it reasonable prognosis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mainstream climate alarmist view right now is that we all going to die in 10 years or so.
That certainly is not my view, and I don't think it is the view of scientists who are warning of the likely effects of climate change, which we should prepare for. There are admittedly people who overcook the alarmist message for political effect. I think it most unfortunate that genuine concerns, backed by scientific evidence, can be drowned out by hype.
A big problem is that if we wait until the evidence of the harmful effects of climate change are so obvious that few people could deny the facts, then we w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply reducing emissions would decrease quality of life to such degree that almost nobody would comply without tyrannical governments forcing compliance.
I agree that we cannot solve these worldwide problems by coercion. I still believe that a liberal democracy is the right way to govern a country. However, I think a good quality of life could be maintained, while consuming less resources. This depends a lot on how quality of life is judged. Currently, for many people, it comes down to how much money you have, and that in turn translates to what goods and services you can purchase. The economy is currently driven by and dependent on increasing consumption of
Re: (Score:2)
Crop yields are not rising in all countries. Some countries are affected by climate change more than others. Is it "leftist" to be concerned that people in other countries are starving? Maybe you would like to send a few million tons of your crop surplus to less fortunate countries. Oh, I forgot, you can't do that, because that would be "leftist".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So with all the climate change mitigation strategies we shouldn't question any of them? Like none of them are skewed by political or profit motives?
It's almost as though we should discuss them ... oh wait.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Questioning the strategies used is fine, as long as the goal is to fix the problem rather than just ignore it.
Climate denialism is people who are saying we should do nothing, or deliberately suggesting things that do very little.
There is another dangerous bunch who now accept that climate change is real but say we can live with 2 or even 3C. They make it sound trivial, erect a few flood defences and turn up your AC. You might even enjoy the warm weather. Well, sorry, but the science says that 2C won't be anything like that easy to deal with, and even if your little patch of land stays above sea level you aren't going to be unaffected by the huge geo-political upheavals.
COP26 failed. We are in dire straits now. People who for whatever reason are happy to see the world burn are a problem we need to deal with. Sorry to be blunt, but they are a far bigger problem than things like terrorism. If conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime, then maybe conspiracy to cause climate change should be too.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really skepticism, it's *alt-credulity*.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is surprising to whom? (Score:2)
Give them enough money and they'll post whatever you want.
Reuters littered with Ads (Score:2)
Am I the only one finding hard to read the article about ads riddled with ads?
Had to stop. Very disorientating, ADHD-unfriendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Get ad-block. It makes the experience much better.
Well.... (Score:3)
here in the good old US of A everything, and I mean everything, is about the money. If you dig deep enough you will find it. This applies to every issue of the day, including Climate Change. How is it that the very same people that are shouting from the rooftops about rising sea levels are the same people buying lavish mansions in Miami, barely a few feet above sea level? How is it that the same people lecturing us about carbon credits are flying to these virtue signaling events, like COP26, in carbon spewing private jets?
I can't say that I watch Newsmax very much at all but if they are reporting that climate doomsday has been reported for dozens of years they are correct. That is a fact and I say this knowing that facts are largely considered optional in modern debate, replaced by emotions and feelings. Why is it that Al Gore is never called out for his ridiculous claims about climate catastrophe? Perhaps his documentary An Inconvenient Trust should be revisited: https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
Gore, to his credit, did create the framework for the modern climate hypocrite. I'll give him that much. On his climate coattails we have John Kerry and George Clooney and Jeff Bezos and countless others: https://www.ccn.com/george-clo... [ccn.com]
Welcome to modern America where the only acceptable opinions are ones that are blessed by the elites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that Al Gore is never called out for his ridiculous claims about climate catastrophe?
LOL. Even people that lean left, sometimes even hard left, call Gore out CONSTANTLY for his hypocrisy. Though some of that criticism has faded as he's become less and less of a spotlight hog over it. MANBEARPIG exists for a reason, and it wasn't to support Al Gore's hyperbolic hoop jumping logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that Al Gore is never called out for his ridiculous claims about climate catastrophe?
He has been, many times.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say that I watch Newsmax very much at all
You lie. You slurp that sludge all too much.
but if they are reporting that climate doomsday has been reported for dozens of years they are correct. That is a fact and I say this knowing that facts are largely considered optional in modern debate
And you start with spewing sludge and not facts. Nice.
YouTube policies... (Score:2)
They'll allow videos that discusses false claims (a phrase they could have just replaced with the word misinformation), but since they now have a policy to hide the dislikes, there will be no clue how many people disagree with the misinformation views presented in the content. You'll only see how many likes it has garnered and could be lured into thinking the content is real, not fake, information.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll only see how many likes it has garnered and could be lured into thinking the content is real, not fake, information.
How many people "like" a video is a very poor way of judging whether the content is true. There are a great many views that are very popular and widespread, and have no foundation in fact. Unfortunately, it is very difficult these days to decide whether a source of information is reputable and reliable, when politicians come out with "alternative facts", and news media connive in this by publishing total rubbish for the sake of gaining viewers and readers. There used to be mechanisms for exposing errors and
FB will accept any ad (Score:2)
Almost every ad I see on FB is a scam. Here's an example.
There is a laser rust removal tool that appears to work like magic. It costs over $10K
I see ads on FB that use the exact same video, scraped from the legit site, showing how the tool works, then offering it for sale at an absurdly low price, under $100
Legitimate ads for real products from honest suppliers are rare
perspective (Score:2, Troll)
To a dogmatic Christian Evangelical, anything not in the bible is a 'falsehood'.
To a dogmatic Ecomarxist, anything contrary to (whatever eco-narrative is current today) is 'falsehood'.
Which is funny, because I'm pretty sure these are the same people who mocked GWBs simplistic "with us or against us" assertion in the early 2000s.
I find it curious that 'skepticism' is now lumped in with ACTUAL LIES. Telling.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it curious that 'skepticism' is now lumped in with ACTUAL LIES. Telling.
It is lies - for a start, it's a lie about how you spell "Scepticism".
We discovered the problem (Score:2, Informative)
So what if it happened during COP26 (Score:3)
Is a climate conference some kind of sacred special event now with new special content rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is the leftist new religion. You do not post heresy against the Chirch especially during the Holy Days.
Blasphemers must be eradicated
They used to too (Score:2)
Facebook used to show these ads before the event. Yes, they showed them during the event, too, but they will definitely continue showing them after the event as well.
It is called a business.
Those I take seriously will advocate for nuclear (Score:3)
The late Dr. David MacKay laid out the problem quite well for anyone to see what solutions we have available to us and how effective they will be. He published a book on this, made this book available for free as a PDF to download, on a website, and spoke of this in a number of interviews and talks. He's been gone for a few years now but the math he left behind can be updated to match current realities. He was very conservative in his estimates, and the results show order of magnitude margins for error, so what he said then still applies today.
The people that take global warming serious will be aware of Dr. MacKay's work, or would have gone through the same calculations independently to reach the same conclusion. We need nuclear fission power, and lots of it, or we will not succeed in lowering CO2 emissions. That does not mean using nuclear power exclusively, it means we can't close all of our existing nuclear power plants and not build more to replace them.
Skepticism is part of the Scientific Process (Score:2)
By now... (Score:2)
Newsmax (Score:2)
If Newsmax is running ads promoting climate disinformation (or even information), it's clear that it isn't a "media outlet", it's a propaganda outlet. News organizations report on the news using their own resources. They don't seek to push messages on other platforms.
Facebook and fascists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't worry. Little Greta's old enough to buy a rifle now. She'll line everyone up against the wall and take care of them all by herself.
Yawn. And also yawn. Who did you copy and paste that from? Your hyperbolic rhetoric is boring AF.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He does seem overly scared of a teenager living on a different continent.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 90s, standing up to the mainstream was cool
The 90s were the most mainstream era you can cite. It is the era when counter-culture became co-opted by capitalism. N-sync and Backstreet Boys ruled the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NSync didn't release anything in the 2000s, their hits were all in the late 90s.
It is true Brittney Spears was much more popular in the 90s.
Not on my radio (Score:2)
In the 90s, standing up to the mainstream was cool
The 90s were the most mainstream era you can cite. It is the era when counter-culture became co-opted by capitalism. N-sync and Backstreet Boys ruled the air.
Hmm, my local and extremely popular commercial radio station was playing NIN, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, Ministry, The Beastie Boys, Primus, KFMDM, My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, The Breeders, Rancid, Operation Ivy, Slipknot, and many others who I was never really into. You know every major city has more than one radio station, right? That pop rise you're referring to didn't happen until really late in the 90s and on the rock stations, it was just shitty Limp Bizkit and Korn songs.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, my local and extremely popular commercial radio station was playing NIN, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, Ministry, The Beastie Boys, Primus, KFMDM, My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, The Breeders, Rancid, Operation Ivy, Slipknot, and many others who I was never really into. You know every major city has more than one radio station, right?
Yeah, that's just stuff that you liked, not the most popular stuff. Although most of that is also extremely commercial.
Kewl (Score:2)
Yeah, that's just stuff that you liked, not the most popular stuff. Although most of that is also extremely commercial.
Hipster! You showed me. I wish I could be as cool as you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I'm too cool to be cool.
Look up rap music (Score:2)
Ah another favorite leftist tactic: bring racism into the discussion. I am not remembering the religious right particularly trying to ban black creators, but that is quite the internal narrative you have going on there.
I guess you never were a rap fan. Sorry buddy, but the biggest names fighting the Religious Right and censors were black standup comedians and lots of rappers. 2 Live Crew ended up going to the Supreme Court. Look it up. I was alive back then.They were really really upset about the influence of Rap music.
Also, you're the one that brought up racism. I just pointed out they really lost their shit over things from black creators. That's a fucking fact.
Satanic Metal? Defcon 3 (we don't approve, but
You're mixing up the 70s and 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
It did not have a thing to do with race.
The 2 Live Crew CD (I have a copy somewhere) was really pushing the lines on what profane things were being released to anyone, even children.
I had a copy as well, a bootleg because it was banned. I was quite popular in my middle school as a kid who could dub a cassette copy for the other rednecks I grew up with. I never said they were banned for being black. I am just saying that the Religious Right were much more motivated by anything related to blacks or homosexuals than other groups. I even said there were many factors besides race, but at the end of the day, it was the black and queer musicians that drew far more ire and controversy than the white/straight ones. I also stated clearly that they did respond to white bands, but it was the rising influence of black entertainers that really lit the fire under their ass.
Also, 2 Live Crew never marketed anything to children. Their shows were always 18 and over. They have no interest in kids. Kids have no money.
George Carlin? That routine was from 1972. This discussion was about the 90s. Lenny Bruce got even worse treatment, but that was a completely different era. One could argue Mae West was attacked even more.
Sad thing is, today with the "woke" cancel culture mob out there, we could not have a Richard Pryor or George Carlin out there today.
You misunderstand the world. Nearly every successful comedy bit would get you fired if you said it out loud in the office. Most comedy is far from politically correct. Lots of profane comics do quite well with "woke" folks. However, "the woke" aren't really a thing outside twitter, social media, and Right Wing Outrage porn. Almost no one on the planet describes themselves as "woke." The few that do aren't taken seriously by anyone. In case you didn't notice, Elizabeth Warren, arguably the most woke of the DNC candidates failed miserably. In the end, it was centrist Joe Biden who won the nomination. I know in you Right-Wing-Mediasphere, you would like to think the DNC is some exaggerated version of AOC and they're taking over and grabbing your guns and free speech, but it simply isn't the case.
I watch a shit ton of comedy. The top names push boundaries and are well rewarded if they actually write funny stuff. These Twitter mobs are not banning you for being transgressive, but for being mean. No one cares if a dozen Twitter users claim to be offended. Anyone can do that. The actual groups that have gained traction only had success in huge numbers and they've only gone after people with cruelty in their material.
Dave Chapelle seems intent on dehumanizing trans women for some reason...which if he actually had funny jokes about them, would be one thing, but his trans material is just kind of dull to a non-trans person and a bit cruel to trans people and their allies. Kevin Hart got banned from the oscars for not only telling a really shitty joke about child abuse AND homophobia, but for refusing to back down (whoda thought that a stereotypically gay event wouldn't be that keen on having a comedian who famously joked about beating his child for playing with dolls because it "was gay."). Every comedian who has apologized for past jokes that crossed the lines is thriving...and Hart is still doing really fucking well and Chapelle seems to have no problem packing venues. I even am a Dave Chapelle fan, but he's losing his touch. His material gets worse with each special. Chapelle's Show was brilliant, but that was 18 years ago. You probably see him as a guy fighting the power. I see him as an entertainer losing his touch...like how Metallica used to be awesome and are now just kind of dull.
Stop lumping political correctness and anti-cruelty together. Every top name in comedy: Bill Burr, Joe Rogan (who is a mega dipshit), Tom Segura, Bert Kreisher, Chris Rock, Jim Jeffries is anything but politically correct, but they keep the c
Re: (Score:2)
What gives you say? Well, I was a pretty progressive liberal in my now-old generation (90s), and the problem is the people we call "woke" are centered on anger and hat
Difference between PC and cruel (Score:3)
Stop lumping political correctness and anti-cruelty together.
You may be able to rationalize a difference, but that does not translate well in the real world. Either people have a right to not be offended, or they don't. You seem to know the answer, but still insist it can be a right for just some chosen people. It can't.
Not sure where you're going, but Political Correctness implies tuning your behavior to avoid minor transgressions. For example, when speaking in public, I would say "African American" and when speaking to the black side of my family or my friends, I would say "black." Calling black people "black" among strangers is not cruel, it's just extra polite to use the formal description. Calling the black community black in a public speech is politically incorrect to some, but there's no cruelty or disrespect. I
Re: (Score:2)
Most of what is called "cancel culture" is just formerly voiceless people who hate it when you make cruel jokes about trans people or the disabled or whichever group you used to not hear complaints about if you were to belittle them. You have full freedom of speech...as do they. It seems most who whine and bitch about "cancel culture" can't handle the fact that yeah, what you do has consequences. Act like a dick and people won't like you. Your boss may think you're bad for business and fire you. If you don't like it, don't be a dick in public. There's a reason I don't use my real name here. :) However, as scary as cancel culture is, few really get canceled for tasteless jokes. They lose a job here and there and gain several others. Kevin Hart and Dave Chapelle are doing better than ever, so I can't really see how one would consider cancel culture all that successful.
Your definition of cancel culture is a bit off. for the most part, it wasn't about being a dick to people, but rather the perception of same. Just because someone
has a differing ideology than you do, doesn't make it right to pull Visa or Master Card privileges'. Or gets the venue that you were invited to speak at to uninvite you.
It doesn't even have to be those of the modern conservative ideology. People like J.K. Rolling have been affected by it. She wasn't being a dick to trans people, stating only
Re: (Score:2)
People have the right to be offended. They have a right to express that. I have a right to ignore them when I think their opinions have no merit
No disagreement here. One side has to suck it up and deal with it either way. I personally like seeing that as evenly distributed as possible.
You don't have a good grasp of comedy. (Score:2)
Really? I remember back in the day, myself and co-workers would often quote Pryor or Carlin routines and everyone laughed, they knew the jokes and no one got fired much less got their panties in a wad.
Did you have a corporate job? That shit doesn't fly. It's always been that way in corporate America for at least the last 30 years (when my older sister started in corporate America). There's a time & place for everything. In 1986, George Carlin could get by with saying "Lacrosse? Lacrosse is *not* a sport, it's a f*ggot college activity. Sorry about that... that's right... Any time you're standing in a field with a stick with a net on the end of it, you're engaged in a f*ggot college activity."
Re: Look up rap music (Score:2)
I don't personally mind if FL sinks in the ocean (Score:4, Interesting)
Now isn't any different. I feel quite confident in saying that the world will keep on turning just fine for a few more decades and then it's going to be more clear if the alarmism was somewhat justified the way the sputnik scare lit a fire under the American scientific establishment, or whether it just another spasm of moral panic the way so many other Big Problems turned out to be.
"turning fine?" Well, yes, I suppose every home in Florida can have their own backup generator until half the state is eventually submeged. People will adapt. Tuvalu will be submerged in the ocean, the population of Colorado will probably really go up I live on a hill above sea level, so I guess my house is safe.
This is really much more like the AIDS crisis, since you brought up the 90s. Most of the world, and especially the Republican establishment, liked to pretend it wasn't a problem (it only affects junkies and gay men, right?). However, it drastically decimated major regions of the world, especially in Muslim majority religious shitholes. Now that we've got it under control, life is much better. Something was eventually done. Many other diseases were treated along with the discoveries found during AIDS research funding. I think in 2021, you & would both agree that life would be MUCH MUCH better if we had started taking it seriously 10 years earlier. Beyond the human toll, AIDS had a social toll. Ask your older friends. In the 60s and 70s, people got laid A LOT MORE than in the 90s...because suddenly we gave a reason for people to act like prudes. Today, AIDS is not even a top 20 worry for most sexually active people. I wish it was the case 30 years ago.
In the end, what are you rebelling against? Green energy investments? Polite suggestions to eat less beef and more pork or chicken and maybe some more vegetables? Reducing the cost of electric cars? Precisely which freedom is being taken away from you?
The whole "world will keep on turning just fine for a few more decades" is really a stupid argument. The world's rotation around the sun or it's axis is not influenced in the slightest by humans. If we go extinct, the "world will keep on turning just fine for a few more decades"...really for billions of years without us. Your quality of life will go down in the coming decades, especially since you live near the ocean. Addressing it "may" slow the severe record breaking weather phenomena we see every year...and more important, just ensure you have reliable energy. This contrarianism is just tedious. I get it...you can't bring yourself to agree with the current administration, even if it fits your rational interests, but you should consider thinking a bit more independently.
Freedom not free (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also known as poisoning the well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you don't keep your own crazies in check.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's what happens when you judge truth by whether the person believing it is one of you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a straw man; you shouldn't believe *anyone's* opinions on a complex subject *as a unit*.
The problem I have is your mode of arguing overestimates the importance of your feelings about these people. I don't want to single you out on this; this applies to me too. I happen to have very negative feelings about the current regime in China, and these feelings certainly lend conviction to many of my beliefs about them, but they should not convince anyone else of anything. To the degree they do, th
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that you really seem to hate Greta Thunberg. Is it the uncomfortable truth or do you really think that there isn't a climate emergency?
Re:Falsehoods (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed that you really seem to hate Greta Thunberg. Is it the uncomfortable truth or do you really think that there isn't a climate emergency?
It might just be that she's an annoying git with a lot of whining and no solutions.
At this point we literally could replace Greta with an mp3 of her saying "too slow; lying; blah blah blah" etc. on a loop. She is extremely naive about how things actually get changed and where power actually sits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She's not perfect,but her lifestyle choices are better than the leaders. They should lead by her example, that'd be one step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
She's not perfect,but her lifestyle choices are better than the leaders. They should lead by her example, that'd be one step in the right direction.
Greta has the luxury of being able to choose her lifestyle - everything she does is paid for by someone else, and she has zero responsibilities. Greta has not been elected, doesn't have to deal with people she she doesn't want to, and doesn't have to stick to any schedule. Her "lifestyle" is a pure fantasy for almost everyone else, including leaders who are actually having to get things done* against opposition rather than just hanging around moaning about stuff online.
*Obviously, our leaders are not all sa
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of fear mongering, the solution doesn't involve throwing out property rights or forcibly downgrading quality of life.
That's the most frustrating part. We could have a better life if it wasn't for the people with vested interesting in stopping us. Does anyone really want to breath in car exhaust fumes, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
If by "emergency" you mean a coordinated hype campaign that exaggerates a little kernel of truth
"Little kernel of truth"? What next? Calling WWII "a small scuffle"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, such an investment in our future (use a little carbon today in order to save many times more carbon later) that superficially resembles hypocrisy is all it takes to convince quite a lot of people--gullible people--that global warming is all a liberal hoax.
People like tha
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Massive international spectacles and theatric productions are never necessary for investment of any kind. And deliberate failure to lead by example is just one of the many hallmarks of con jobs. Preachers who preach fidelity to your woman while fucking a string of little boys and little girls belong in the same category as climate alarmists living the jet-setting life.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a little [slashdot.org].
When did Boris Johnson become a limousine liberal? (Score:5, Insightful)
like pictures of a bunch of limousine liberals flying chartered jets to mingle with other limousine liberals in between bouts of berating the unwashed masses about how their lifestyle choices are literally killing the planet?
Or falsehoods like nuclear power being a win-win path to having both low emissions and reliable energy?
Don't worry. Little Greta's old enough to buy a rifle now. She'll line everyone up against the wall and take care of them all by herself.
They're fucking world leaders. Since when was Boris Johnson a "Limousine Liberal?" But hey, so cool, a bunch of world leaders travel to a summit, so you can just ignore it and all the effects? No need to adjust anything in life, right?
Also, you're super correct there. Greta is going to buy a gun and shoot everyone who disagrees with her. That's a completely rational statement and not a paranoid fantasy to justify your love of arming yourself for the coming race war, zombie apocalypse, or climate conflict, or whatever justifies your excuse you make yourself to Rambo/GI-Joe cosplay on the weekends.
Is COP26 a circle jerk? Sure...I don't want to listen to those assholes either, but it doesn't relieve you and I of our responsibilities to not be fuckups. I'm able to think for myself. Are you? I don't have to agree with a group of people 100% to listen to them and recognize that they're correct about many things that are really fucking important. Statements like yours are why we can't have nice things.
Burning fossil fuels is stupid and we need to stop it. If you don't believe me, go fellate your tailpipe. Why don't you run a gasoline generator indoors? I could take a nap on a bed of solar panels with no problem. Could you do that next to the exhaust stack of your local power plant? ICEs spew tons of carcinogens and fuel will only get more expensive as we run out. We need alternative energy....I'm not a tree hugger. I just recognize my livelihood is based on having reliable and cheap electricity. Building up capacity is what smart countries are doing...and what we'd be doing here in the USA if it wasn't for dumbasses like you.
Also, please fuck off with the nuclear whataboutisms. Nuclear is cool in theory, but just not cost-effective. Most people who believe in investing in alternative energy have no problems with nuclear, but yeah...you gotta do it correctly. When you fuck up, you fuck up big. Also, it's this scary time bomb that costs MORE than solar/wind. So pardon us that it's not what we're enthusiastic about. Believe me, if the technology was there, it would be a lot more prevalent. Most of America is perfectly fine with nuclear if you can do it correctly and at an actual cost advantage.
But hey, since it's not in the first paragraph of every climate statement, you're welcome to completely disregard every single sentence every given about climate change. Buy a fucking hummer and run it in traffic for long-ass commutes. Eat nothing but beef for breakfast, lunch, and dinner...nothing else but beer to wash it down. It's the new manly paleo diet. I hear Joe Rogan says it'll make you super healthy and able to suck your own dick like he can (but swears he doesn't). That'll show those "Limousine Liberals."
Do liberals suck at messaging? Yeah, that's an understatement. Think for yourself, though, dumbass. Those annual record-breaking storms are clearly not routine. However, even if you think it's a hoax, which does make you wrong, the looming energy shortage is not. What do you do for a living? I know my career and everything I enjoy in life requires electricity at some point. I want it to be cheap and reliable and plentiful. Investing in energy production ensures we're insulated from OPEC bullshit, disasters in other regions disrupting fuel supplies, and funding wars in shitholes determined to bomb each other for the weakest reasons so we can ensure a plentiful supply of crude oil. Also, that spewing concentrated carcinogens into the air, even if pretty far away from my house, office, and kids' school generally can't be a good thing if we have alternatives. But hey, kick that can down the road for your kids...and get some cool zingers in there too, dude!
Re:When did Boris Johnson become a limousine liber (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe me, if the technology was there, it would be a lot more prevalent. Most of America is perfectly fine with nuclear if you can do it correctly and at an actual cost advantage.
How are people supposed to get better at building nuclear power plants if they must first prove they can do it perfectly the first time? Assume that today someone tells you they can build a nuclear power on time and on budget, would you let them build? My guess is you'd tell them they have to prove they can do this before they get permission to build. The only way to prove they can do this is to let them try. If they fail to meet schedule and budget then they learned plenty to improve the process for the next try.
The only way to develop a technology is to build things. We won't see nuclear power technology improve until we see people start to build nuclear power plants. Once they start building nuclear power plants the people involved gain experience. They can pass this experience on to others so they too can bring down the cost of nuclear power.
What if we made the same demands of wind and solar power? How would people learn to bring down the cost of wind and solar power if nobody could build without first proving it was cheaper than coal? How would anyone even prove wind and solar power is cheaper than coal without building prototypes?
We are going to build more nuclear power plants in the USA because at some point this stupid argument you made will be called out for what it is. We get a lot of our electricity from nuclear power and those nuclear power plants are getting very old. As they close this will create demand for electricity, and put a lot of people with experience in nuclear power looking for work. That will change the costs on building a nuclear power plant. Then when one power plant is finished there will be people with experience in building them. That changes the cost calculations again. Before long we will see a dozen civil nuclear power reactors under construction. Then it will be two dozen. That is just in the USA, expect dozens more to be built outside the USA.
Everyone is waiting to be the second person to build a nuclear power reactor because that first one is where most of the costs in learning how to build them has to be paid. After that there will be people tripping over themselves to build civil nuclear fission power plants. Anyone that thinks the USA does not need civil nuclear power plants is ignorant, moronic, or a shill. The evidence is quite clear that we need nuclear fission power in the USA, and we need it soon. The same goes for UK, France, Australia, Germany, and so many other nations around the world. We will see nuclear power plants built by the hundreds in time, because the alternative is scarcity, poverty, and starvation. Given our options I expect people to choose nuclear fission power.
Re: (Score:2)
Never going to happen, ive told you many times nobody wants nukes.
Then nobody wants to solve the problem of global warming.
I am fully aware that "nobody wants nukes" but that is not the issue here. People will get nuclear power whether they want it or not, because the alternative is scarcity, poverty, and starvation.
Dr. David MacKay demonstrated with very simple math and using data available to anyone that we need nuclear power or the lights will go out. The argument on the cost of nuclear power plants is not relevant because the data that is available to everyone shows
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, I think (and hope) that we can do without nuclear. But at this point I think we seriously need to consider it a necessary component of
Re: (Score:2)
No
Re: (Score:2)
like pictures of a bunch of limousine liberals flying chartered jets to mingle with other limousine liberals in between bouts of berating the unwashed masses about how their lifestyle choices are literally killing the planet?
Discussing on how to solve the world's issues and agreeing on complex international issues is not a "lifestyle choice". Your whataboutism is lame, and you should feel bad for it.
Don't worry. Little Greta's old enough to buy a rifle now. She'll line everyone up against the wall and take care of them all by herself.
Why would she kill the people actually discussing how to solve the problem? I think she may have more problems with RightwingNutjobs dismissing the efforts through whataboutism.
Re: "modern doomsayers" had been wrongly predictin (Score:2)
While there have been bad models out there, overall climate models have done a pretty good job:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
It can be difficult to assess because there are many models that focus on different aspects of the climate, not just some magical supermodel. Of the many models that have been used, it's easy to find one (or a paper) that over or under predicted warming badly, but overall models that have predicted warming have done a pretty good job.