• piege@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think at least 60% of people would beg to differ.

    Also, where do your data from? We’re seeing the impacts right now and although we still have a chance of minimising the impact we’re still emitting GHG at dangerous rates.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a climate activist, my data comes largely from the NOAA/EPA as well as independent think-tanks.

      The poster you’re responding to is correct.

      • mob@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like I misread this whole comment chain since it has a tone of argument, but it seems like everyone is in agreeance.

        but I’m not sure using unnamed “independent think-tanks” is a good source to cite for data. At least according to my independent think tanks conclusion.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty sure as a literal climate lobbyist, I know more about this than you

          • mob@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To me, you are just a random person on Lemmy, so you telling me you are the think tank and are more qualified than me has no value. Well gathered verifiable data and properly calculated statistics are all that matters on subjects like this on anonymous forums.

            Also, your job title doesn’t prove anything. I can direct you to Doctors that don’t believe in vaccines.

            Also, also… I wasn’t being confrontational. I was just saying “independent think tank” is a terrible source. Using the previous example of vaccines, there were/are plenty of people boasting false info about the vaccines/COVID and referring to random “think tanks”.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I did not say I am in a think tank. I said we use some think tank knowledge (generally for highly localized policy advocation), while relying on world standards for climate studies

              If you have an issue with the world’s chosen standards, perhaps write to the UN or your country’s UN ambassador.

              • mob@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                To be honest, you just seem like someone who wants to be confrontational online so cheers

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not the one trying to start arguments about climate science

                  • mob@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I have not said anything about climate science but I have said something about your method of showing qualifications.

                    almost 2.5k comments in 3 months though… that’s a pretty solid sign that you really like arguing online and likely like to put your “opponents” into some random box of assumptions like you are with me, so you have fun out here o7

          • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pretending to be a climate activist on the internet while down playing the consequences and severity of climate change? Smells like astroturfing to me. If you’re not doing it for a pay cheque then I worry for your mental health.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not downplaying consequences, but being accurate about timelines.

              Most serious impacts of climate change that is already in-process won’t be felt til 2100+. We’ll hit 1.5C by 2030 and 2C by 2050, but that’s nowhere near catastrophic - that comes if we continue to not do things because the changes are slow.

              Not understanding the timeline is what feeds into climate denialism. It’s like their #1 talking point

              Next time you’re confused just ask for clarity.

              • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                won’t be felt til 2100+.

                We’re already feeling serious impacts, right now, in 2023. This statement just makes you seem incompetent. I hope for your sake you’re just a bad actor.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re either dramatically overestimating the current situation or vastly underestimating how serious things will actually get