With the month long heat wave.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They move the goalposts.

    “It’s going to be a problem in Africa”

    “It’s going to be a problem in 50 years”

    "It’s futile to do anything unless China stops polluting "

    “Electric cars pollute more than ordinary cars”

  • FullOfBallooons@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to my father in law: everything’s fine, actually. It’s hot, sure, but it’s been hot before. The actual problem is that The Weather Channel has started to get political/go woke and push an agenda.

    So next time it’s so hot the power grid can’t take it or your house is destroyed in a flood or forest fire, it’s just that pesky Weather Channel!

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They complain about how weird and unprecedented the weather has been the last few years, but if I so much as mention the word “climate” an awkward silence descends. I also had a guy hint at some weird conspiracy theory about the sun recently.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think I might have at some point, actually. It seems any suggestion that it’s not a few years of weird coincidences shakes people.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? Climate is the average of weather, usually over 30 years. So if the weather is substantially different for a few years in a row it starts impacting climate.

      This is simple arithmetic.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. And I figure a lot of those people think that they’re the same thing, or would have, anyway.

  • Berttheduck@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My dad: “the earth goes through natural temperature cycles, I’ve got some good scientific sources who say it’s all natural and climate change is just scaremongering”

    Guess that’s another topic along with the EU, immigration, COVID, vaccination that I can’t talk about with my family.

    Makes it hard and frustrating to continue to have a relationship at times.

  • Robertej92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “hottest summer on record? Give it a rest, they say that every year!”

    Also I’m in the UK which has been raining and dreary for the last month so it’s not getting as much coverage here.

  • Jaywarbs@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some are now pivoting to “Climate change is good so we shouldn’t do anything about it.” A US representative fork Wisconsin said that recently, since it means Wisconsin would be warmer during the winter.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s all a hoax, it’s not a big deal, it’s just hot out.

    My family is from Iowa, where they’ve had record breaking storms 3 out of the last 5 years, heat waves lasting longer than ever in history, record cold, and to top it off, wildfire smoke for the first time ever. (Note that this is after they made fun of Cali for being Cali and being on fire). No, none of these events have registered as connected in any way.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing will ever convince these people. They are immune to evidence and argument.

      • trafguy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        logic will never convince them because they aren’t arguing from a position of logic. It’s about conforming to the beliefs required to be part of their tribe and/or protecting themselves from coming to terms with the harsh realities of climate change. It’s reactionary against a challenge to their beliefs.

        You would need to first convince them to consider that their respected authorities could be wrong. But within this reactionary mindset, being wrong is disgraceful. So unless they lose respect for their leaders or manage to shift away from believing fallibility is disgraceful, I don’t know if they can be convinced.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          logic will never convince them to consider

          That’s kind of why I’m asking, the month long heat wave should be eye opening.

          • trafguy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you’d need to start by getting them to admit that the heat is a problem without mentioning climate change. Don’t use any of the buzz words they’ve been taught how to respond to. Just try to get them to have a conversation where they have to come up with their own answers.

            In fact, maybe don’t even start off with anything related to the topics they’ve been told what to think about. Ask about something they care about more directly that isn’t on their party’s agenda. You’d need to keep at it long enough for them to start understanding you’re not their enemy, which could be anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks/months, depending on how deeply entrenched they are. Then, start trying to work towards the lesser issues their authority doesn’t bring up often but has expressed an opinion on. Basically, you need to de-indoctrinate them.

            If you can get them to talk about an issue without recognizing immediately that they’re in danger of contradicting their chosen authorities, then slowly transition towards getting them to talk about more and more “dangerous” topics, you might help them to bridge that disconnect and start thinking critically about the key issues.

            That all said, You’ll have an easier time working with people who haven’t been deeply entrenched in an authoritarian ideology. The less developed their beliefs, the easier it’ll be to guide them towards thinking about their beliefs critically. That’s one reason it’s so important to teach critical thinking in primary/secondary schools.

    • Sigma@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      maybe if you can convince them that global warming helps out joe biden they will be against it.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You see it’s a conspiracy, Sleepy Joe wants us to keep using fossil fuels so the liberals will vote him back it so it looks like he’s doing something! The last thing he wants is for us to stop using fossil fuels! I bought an EV today just to spite him

        • tallwookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          most electric plants use coal or natural gas. EV isnt any “cleaner” than a small gas engine.

  • QuantumQuack@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t care about the heat wave in southern Europe because northern Europe has had a relatively cold and rainy July.

    The slightly less dumb ones now say “Yeah it’s happening but we shouldn’t fight it, we should just accept it” (and then proceed to complain about refugees, which will increase x1000 if we don’t do anything but they don’t make the connection)

    The dumber ones say that it’s “natural cycles”

  • porkins@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    They literally are saying that it is like this every summer. The other excuse they use is that we shouldn’t be forced to do something when there are countries that pollute worse. The other argument they provide is that climate change policy affects poor people the most, so they claim that it would be unfair to them if we enacted any of it.

  • squidsarefriends@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friendly reminder that it’s not about denial anymore. It’s about how urgent is the existential threat of tipping points and how radical and fast should we act.

    One side says, let’s stay reasonable, let’s not hurt the economy, don’t panic because of the these crazy Greta maniacs. Source: We managed a lot of crisis in the past, sometimes it’s not that hot, lobby money.

    The other side says we have to hit the breaks immediately or a lot of people are going to die. Source: Science.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are you basing the existential threat claim on? I don’t think I’ve heard a credible scientist ever claim it’s going to end our specie. The yearly excess deaths estimates I’ve heard vary from few hundred thousand to couple million a year in 2050 - 2100.

      • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        While your numbers, if factual (no source posted), are statistically correct (in that it won’t make our species go extinct), you have to remember a simple fact: those numbers represent individual human lives. Family, friends, neighbors, your pizza guy, etc. Pretty brutal to be so flippant about.

        Also, this doesn’t take into account the potential for cascading environmental system failures that could be caused by such warming. These unknowns could greatly change the equation.

        I realize you are mainly arguing the point in response to “existential threats” being bandied about, but it’s a weird stance to take here.

          • TheMage@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly - it is your duty to question the Government and the scientists that work for them. Lets be honest, the Govt’s track record for truth is a tad suspect and thats being extra nice. As I said earlier, the alarmists have been selling this to us(or trying to) in differently wrapped packages now for several decades. Even back in the 1970’s there were hysterical claims being made. None of it came anywhere close to being true. So, logically, people question it.

            More importantly, people question the mitigation tactics which seem to only affect the lower/middle classes directly. Another tough thing for the average Joe to swallow.

    • TheMage@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you elaborate on the “hit the brakes immediately” or we’re all going to die statement? What “Science” backs this claim up? Legit science please, not from agenda-laden website.

      • squidsarefriends@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The IPCC report is what you‘re looking for! And since it‘s it‘s almost impossible to even reach the goal of 1,5 degrees, we should hit the breaks better sooner than later. It‘s not an „oopsie“ problem we would face otherwise. People are already dying.

        • TheMage@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No - Im not looking for anything, actually. I just would prefer that those that chest-thump about this stuff would walk the talk and take a “lead”. But they refuse. What does “hit the brakes” mean? Are the rich going to also hit the brakes? Or is this all on us “little people” as usual?