• projectd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 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
      2
      ·
      8 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.

      • NewPerspective@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s so painfully obvious that you’re alone in life… If you spent a few hours around real people you might feel differently about the world and the people in it. Instead it’s all rules and courts and echo chambers.

      • projectd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 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.