• ChapolinColoradoNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if it wasn’t human made, if we can do something about it and help ourselves out of it as a result, why shouldn’t we? It’s crazy that this is even an argument.

        • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because also “nature will take care of itself.”

          Yep, just like my body takes care of itself with fever and such when something multiplies too much and dumps its waste in me. Burn it out and flush it out, that’s just “nature taking care of itself.”

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        William Jennings Bryant represented a case back in the 20s or 30s about the potential harm of anthropogenic global warming (now called climate change to try to meet science deniers in places getting cold due to changes in currents and jetstreams where they are). The science was known in the late 1800s. The exact science was known in the 1950s. The failure to act on that information is thanks in large part to corruption and greed. Anytime you hear “the science isn’t out yet” or “they didn’t use the narrow definition of the scientific method I learned in middle school in Nebraska involving a very specific structure of lab based experiment so climate science isn’t real science” you are hearing the output of nearly 80 years of not wanting to do anything about it because it would put this quarters profits at risk

          • cmbabul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            And nuclear power was seemingly the future, the oil companies bear the vast majority of the blame but Chernobyl certainly didn’t help our current situation.