Gloomy

And it is science denial to have a scientific opinion that is interpreting facts differently then the consensus?

Also, from my first source:

"The IPCC supports the overwhelming scientific consensus about human impact on climate change, so we would expect the reports' vocabulary to be dominated by greater certainty on the state of climate science -- but this is not the case."

The IPCC assigns a level of certainty to climate findings using five categories of confidence and ten categories of probability. The team found the categories of intermediate certainty predominated, with those of highest certainty barely reaching 8% of the climate findings evaluated.

"The accumulation of uncertainty across all elements of the climate-change complexity means that the IPCC tends to be conservative," says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Fellow in Global Ecology at Flinders University. "The certainty is in reality much higher than even the IPCC implies, and the threats are much worse."

What? You literaly poster an opinion peace. By a climate scientist, yes, but so is the response I posted.

Plus, I quoted a study in reply to the comments about the IPCC.

How is that climate science denial?

A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm

As a climate scientist, it is my duty to tell you about what is happening to our world, whether it engenders fear or not.

A failure to do this will mean that the public is left ignorant of the true extent of the climate emergency, which in turn can only hinder engagement and action.

This is already becoming a problem, with many commentators on the right of the political spectrum, along with some climate scientists, denigrating as “doomers” anyone flagging the worst outcomes of global heating.

Such climate “appeasement” is increasingly taking the place of denial and could be an even greater driver of inertia than fear, as it plays down the enormity of the problem — and as an inevitable consequence, the urgency of action.

Bill McGuire

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire/index.html

Ah, yes. Let's not look at the data or what he is presenting. Let's dismiss it with a lazy blanked statement. Because this is how science work. You don't look at what is said. You look at who said it.

I am currently doing my bachelor in padagogical science and I can ensure you that group dynamics and individuals position in those groups very seldom have anything to do with the individual. There are contributing factors in all personalities involved, but it more often comes down to how a group is situated in what context. Often youngh people internalise their roles and continue to act according to them in different groups. So, take it as a scientific fact that you very likey didn't do anything wrong as a child, nor had a personality trade that was the sole contribute to beeing ostracized.

After several days of what I can only describe as ill-informed pro crab propaganda posts all over lemmy I realy needed this. Thank you.

No sex worker should feel ashame for their job. The ones I know don't at least.

I get you were joking and I see how my comment may come over as prude. It's just that it's a very harsh Industrie that is often marginalised. More often than not it intersect with people of lower class seeing it as one of the few ways to earn money. Those that work it often have to hide it, even if it's legal, because there is a huge taboo around it. And then of course there is a huge dark area where mostly females are human trafficked into a country and then forced into prostitution.

Makingsex work to be a legal job and getting legislation like in this thread here helps a lot and is indeed progressive and positive.

I feel like making fun of these people isn't helpful, or progressive at all. Nothing against a lighthearted joke, but your comment offers nothing else but sex jokes and a lip service remark about how progressive the law is. I feel like it is making fun of sex workers more than anything else.

If that makes me a prude gatekeeper in your eyes (and the eyes of the downvoters) then be it so. You can think of me what ever you wish. I'll have to live with that burden.

Spoiler much?

Solche Geräte werden mit dem Blut und Schweiß der Kinder-Generationen am Leben gehalten, bevorzugt an den Weihnachtsfeierstagen.

Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of.

That is sensible, yes.

I regards to the graph you posted, it shows how emissions from private comps is have fallen and emissions from nations and nation owned companies have rissen. I think this is a relevant distinction to make, because the meme and the report as they are show a one sided picture (capitalism is the sole drive of climate change) whilst, looking at the complete data, a more nuanced picture emerges (like the role of nations in upholding the capitals system).

You know, this sounds liks something good old American capitalism could dab into. Obviously there is no war in the US (yet). But I see potential there.

Visit the Californian Homeless-Camps. Have a tour around a Texas school where kids have no idea evolution exists and think Noas Ark was real. While you are there, visit an Emergency rooma parking lot: you might be lucks and see a pregnant teenager die in her car. Then go to West Verginia and play a fun game of "spot the Junky". Bath in the misery of black people working three jobs to live from their hand into their mouth all around the country. Be a shocked but o so entertained bystander while they are beaten up, or, if you are lucky, even shot by a police officer on their way home.