
Fact-check of viral climate misinformation quietly removed from Facebook - MaysonL
https://popular.info/p/fact-check-of-viral-climate-misinformation?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3MzQyNTMsInBvc3RfaWQiOjczNzE5NSwiXyI6InltL3hkIiwiaWF0IjoxNTk1MjQzNDMwLCJleHAiOjE1OTUyNDcwMzAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xNjY0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.8KbuvtlorsxcLyrho1siReQsViHR6TPmpCGCtKDoMYk
======
perfunctory
This is yet another reminder that climate change is not a science / technology
issue. Science has been settled, technology exists. It's a moral courage
issue. Moral courage that our leaders lack. So we have to do it ourselves.
There are two broad categories of actions one can take. 1) personal life-style
changes 2) system change activism. We are at the point where anyone concerned
about the climate change has to do both. Nobody is gonna do it for you.

~~~
krona
_Science has been settled_

Science can never be so arrogant. Most people probably know this but it's
worth restating in a heated debate about the 'evidence': The _null hypothesis_
exists for a reason; that is because we can not prove anything. We can only
eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false.

~~~
adrianN
As far as I know, there is no heated debate about the evidence among climate
scientists, at least not on the points that matter for policy decisions. The
debate only exists outside of expert circles.

~~~
gh02t
There is no real debate about whether climate change is real nor whether or
not it is a major threat, but there is still debate on policy-relevant points.
I'm not a climate scientist myself, but I do work with a bunch of them and
from what I gather from talking to them there is still a lot of work and
debate over consequences, remediation, and urgency. The latter mostly ranging
from "extremely urgent but we still have time to avoid the most severe
consequences" to "it's too late to prevent widespread disasters and we need to
try to minimize the worst."

~~~
zzzcpan
Right, there is plenty of confidence that climate change is real and caused by
humans, but pretty much zero confidence in the long term effects of climate
change on human population.

~~~
wizzwizz4
Yeah; nobody knows for certain how long we've got left. Could be a century or
more, could be a few decades. Personally, I'd rather not risk it.

------
drocer88
Is this the original controversial article :
[https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of-
environmentali...](https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of-
environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/) which was reproduced in
Daily Wire???

Is there a link to copy of what got censored by facebook?

It would be good to have access to original material being discussed.

~~~
uxp100
This is not the original article, it was published on “The Daily Wire” and
titled something about 12 climate myths based on this article.

But it is the same author. Maybe the “Daily Wire” piece was a rewriting of
this?

------
Kednicma
It is poignant to see a Louisiana congressperson pushing for disinformation to
be unmarked, especially climate change disinformation, since Louisiana is
continually falling into the sea due to climate change. In some sense, they do
it to themselves.

Edit: Downvoters, look at the satellite images [0] and tell me that Louisiana
isn't drowning, falling into the sea. Tell me that Louisiana doesn't do this
to itself with jungle primaries and fake maps. By deliberately ignoring the
problem, they make it worse.

[0]
[https://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/sea_level4_h1.jpg](https://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/sea_level4_h1.jpg)

------
aaron695
They fact checked "Humans are not causing a massive 6th extinction" as false.

So we are causing an extinction as big-ish as the last 5 and that's settled
science? Not allowed to debate?

That's why you can't trust fact checkers.

And a big wow lie from the fact checkers, it implies he wants coal fired
stoves.

“Our work has shown much higher cancer risk from coal-burning stoves compared
to wood-burning stoves”

Noone anywhere is suggesting people go to coal fired stoves. What a lie,
clearly he is talking electric stoves, which is know as fact would save
hundreds of thousands of lives yearly if people went to. This is a huge push
in the NGO's dealing with health.

Original article -

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/Schel...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/Schellenberger-Apology.pdf)

~~~
adrianN
The Wikipedia article uses pretty strong language

"The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction
or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during
the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called
Anthropocene) as a result of human activity."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

It also has a lot of references. You can always debate scientific results, but
for many topics you need to be an expert in the field and bring some serious
data to support your opinions if you don't want to be laughed out of the room.
Most "debates" don't feature that kind of argument.

~~~
aaron695
Obviously I'm cherry picking, but here's a explanation why we aren't

Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-
ends...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-
world/529545/)

Pretty pic with info on the first 5 -
[https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-11/file-20191111-17...](https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-11/file-20191111-178484-1e7unnm1.png)

Doing a quick literature review I'm not seeing much at all on the "Sixth Mass
Extinction". There are mostly the same articles from wiki.

No one is doubting we are extincting species at a rate far beyond anything
normal. This is nothing to do with a Sixth Mass Extinction though, that's many
steps up.

What international bodies recognise it? Do we have any data on how many
scientists agree?

