Story at a glance Data management firm Harmony Healthcare IT recently released a report on the state of Gen Zers mental health. As part of the report, the firm conducted a survey on Gen Zers…
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure as a literal climate lobbyist, I know more about this than you
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”.
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.
To be honest, you just seem like someone who wants to be confrontational online so cheers
I’m not the one trying to start arguments about climate science
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
Actually it’s a solid sign that I work from home and have lots of downtime between meetings, and when I’m sitting in airports traveling for work
You have fun too.
Lol, lmao even.
You can join too! Almost certainly a local chapter in your area and they provide you everything you need.
Free to join and you are welcome to dictate your level of participation
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Astroturf harder for me daddy.
You don’t know what astroturfing is
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.
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.
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.
You’re either dramatically overestimating the current situation or vastly underestimating how serious things will actually get