36
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)
Science Communication
885 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!
Science Communication
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Outreach:
Networking:
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is an interesting and well written piece. I do take issue with the author falling short in considering the actual actors that have contributed to climate change. It’s not a conspiracy theory that car (and tire) manufacturers have worked against public transportation infrastructure in the US. It’s not a contentions theory that fossil fuel companies knew they were altering the atmosphere and our political system did nothing.
There are conspiracies, which are distinct from conspiracy theories. Would I be a climate populist for suggesting petrol lobbies are responsible to a degree for climate change? What if I believe that capitalist economic forces have accelerated climate change? Could I be disregarded as a conspiracy theorist?
The article makes predictions that are sound, but a clearer delineation on responsibility is needed.