News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yes. There is no excuse for someone with the science training to believe these things. She was either a very weak person or the program she studied in wasn’t very strong. Either way, although it’s good to model perspective change, this isn’t the example we need.
TBF there are a lot of unintuitive things going on with the science of climate change, such as the precise role of greenhouse gas absorption/emission spectra in trapping heat, that even with a strong general science background it’s not immediately obvious what the driving factors are.
Add to that the (deliberate) but plausible sounding misinformation and you have a deadly cocktail of not quite correct pseudoscience to drown in.
I understand being a climate skeptic, up until a certain point in time. There were still a lot of things that were unclear and the reporting was muddled and there was lots of conflicting information floating and even in supposedly well informed publications. But there really is no excuse after 2004 or so.
There really isn’t to disbelieve even as far back as the 70s. The models weren’t as good back then but the conclusions remain essentially unchanged.
I agree with you. In fact we had important data about this going back to the early 1900s.
But convincing people of it back then was tough going. Even scientists. It only really started being obviously undeniable (which is a higher bar than merely very likely) in the early 1990s. And we didn’t always do a very good job selling it to be honest.
They were publishing and discussing these things in the 70’s. Not big oil secret memos - published articles, tv shows, magazines, all that media could carry had it consistently represented over fifty years ago all the way through to today.
Tree huggers. Disgusting hippies. Loonies. That’s all the thanks these people could muster. Yeah, some people are not going to accept a “whoopsie. Gosh i was wrong” and just forget it. With good reason.
Reckoning: a settling of accounts.
Also, we are talking about brainwashing. Aum Shinrikyo successfully turned medical doctors from the best university in Japan into cult religion leaders to join the leadership that killed, injured and disabled subway passengers with sarin, among others murdered in different ways.
But science isn't intuition-based. It often comes to conclusions that are far from intuitive.