A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The tipping point is going to come 5-10y before the mainstream op-eds that shrilly decry "Why did no one warn us it would be this bad!?" while simultaneously blaming leftist voters, consumers and immigrants for not taking it upon themselves to magic up a solution.
At this point climate scientists are like the boy who cried wolf except there’s a huge fucking wolf that everyone can see but nobody wants to admit to in case they are asked to pay to find a solution.
I've been telling this to people for two decades: climate denialism exists to provide a "get out of liability free" card for the folks who'd otherwise be stuck paying climate reparations
We found the solutions a long time ago - it's just that nobody wanted to implement them.
Yes.
Unfortunately, those solutions aren’t acceptable because we have to think about the shareholders and the politicians who like the lobbying money.
May, they'll say it's the lasers, just like the hurricanes. They'll pretend it was intentional to create a bigger threat from "the others" that require them to all give up their rights in order to fight.
I used to think it'd be our kids or grandkids who would find out, but its looking like it might actually be us. What a time to be alive.
NGL it's kind of refreshing when a scientist says "We don't know."
Most scientists are working with the hope of making a dent in what we don't know. There's no shortage of "we don't know."
Most likely all scientists will admit that there is a lot more we don't know than what we do know.
Hell, even when they finish a study, they’re liable to still say they don’t know. They’re just saying what happened in their study and how it could mean this happens on a larger scale.
When a journalist actually reports when a scientist says "We don't know".
A brief overview by Stefan Rahmstorf.
Good stuff throughout the whole thing to understand what the AMOC is and how its slowdown or collapse could affect things, but two crucial points he makes is that IPCC models assume a stable AMOC in their projections since it's still a big unknown, which is obviously a problem, and that he says in this video most likely the tipping point for a full collapse was past early in the century (not sure if he means earlier in the last hundred years or early in the 20th century, but probably doesn't matter).
Are middle class American 2000s babies going to suffer?
(Gut feel is 2050 is gonna be ruff)
Saw another article that puts the 10th percentile of AMOC collapse around 2037, and 90th percentile around 2062, both from these same scientists.
I think we'll be lucky to make it to 2040, personally.
Dang it
Thank you
Last I heard 2035 was already going to be pretty crap, 2050 was unlivable.
Looks like we will find out. Then we will find out how bad it is. Then we will wish we had listened to the scientists.
I hope some other species can survive and don't have to suffer by our hands anymore.
Horrible what we do to this planet, other living beings and ourselves.
Are you sure we didn't pass some of those already?
I think it's quite clear that we did.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/23/we-dont-know-where-the-tipping-point-is-climate-expert-on-potential-collapse-of-atlantic-circulation