What we imagined the climate deniers would say when the climate catastrophes came vs. what they actually are saying - Tom the Dancing Bug
This isn't funny. I'm not saying it's not good. I'm just saying I need to cry now.
This comic makes me want a benevolent alien life form to exterminate all humans and let evolution try again.
....or help us?
That's what they said?
If they've been watching us long enough they know that's a waste of time. About half the population of the US wouldn't believe in climate change if God himself said it was real.
I don't see why you would need an alien life form for that. Humans are doing it already.
Ah yes, the classic sort of aliens who exterminate other civilizations, being benevolent is of course how you'd characterize them.
Isn't there some guy testifying about UFOs in Congress this week? We can only hope aliens see earth as a rare and valuable resource that we're fucking up so maybe they'll take it from us.
How is acknowledging that the climate is constantly changing, fall into the category of climate denier?
The person in the comic is pointing out that the climate is constantly changing as a rebuttal to the idea that human-caused climate change is a real issue. The implication is that all climate change is natural and therefore we cannot combat climate change and shouldn't even try. It's a common tactic of climate deniers.
Because it's a pretty silly take.
It's like seeing a corpse riddled with bullets and "acknowledging" that people die all the time, and as such how can you know for sure it was the bullets that did it?!?
Edit: A word
In this context, the question is whataboutism. The facts are that these changes are not in the norm, and that we have experts in climate science telling us that.
You're being downvoted because this line of questioning is usually the beginning of a bad faith argument. I decided to engage because hey, maybe you are just curious so I'll give people on Lemmy the benefit of the doubt.
Denying that it's happening and denying it's a problem have the same consequences so I'm not super fussed about the difference.
Because it's used as a talking point for inaction. Inaction is what put us here and is the equivalent of climate denier. But I'm sure you already knew all that.
I'm being negatively voted for asking a question, reminiscent of reddit. Thank you folks.
Mostly as the way you asked the question, is a manner that many do when JAQ-ing off (Just Asking Questions) - particularly about this specific topic. A lot of folks do not engage in these discussions in good faith, and claim they're "just asking questions" but really aren't actually asking to learn but to make smarmy dismissive comments.
If instead, you had gone "I actually don't understand, could someone explain what this panel means?" then people would have responded more positively.
People are likely downvoting because you used the equivalent of a climate denialism dog whistle. It comes off as bad faith because when most people use the term climate change they mean anthropogenic climate change.
It forgot, “well there’s nothing we can do about it now!”
"but it's just the corporations' fault!"
And then call it socialism for wanting to hold them accountable
So many people absolutely refuse to change their own destructive habits and justify it with "corporations tho!" like they just pollute for fun and not to produce goods and services consumers buy.
Refusing to give them your money by changing your habits to be less destructive is a great way to hold them accountable, while advocating and voting for regulation of course.