Well, COVID-19 is a little bit different than climate change and evolutionary theory. Scientists have been working on evolutionary theory for the past 150 years and climate change for, say, 70 years – so the science is very well established and well settled. COVID-19 is different because there are many things about it, and coronaviruses in general, that we don’t understand; we can’t say the science is settled.

But we can see that even in the very different scientific situation, some of the same kinds of political and ideological issues are kicking in. People reject scientific advice [about COVID-19] because they see it as the government telling them what to do: “I don’t want the government telling me that I have to wear a mask.” And that overlaps a lot with the rejection of climate change, where the rejection of government and market fundamentalism is also tied to a kind of radical individualism: “My life is not for someone else to tell me what to do.” That’s okay, up to a point. But when what you do hurts other people, then it gets problematic.

Naomi Oreskes on the science of climate change and COVID-19 – and those who deny it - McGill Reporter
https://reporter.mcgill.ca/naomi-oreskes-on-the-science-of-climate-change-and-covid-19-and-those-who-deny-it/

Pro milovniky podcastu. Rozhovor o dezinformacni masinerii s Naomi Oreskes

Even people who might have been skeptical to begin with about climate change, when I would actually talk about why I got involved in this issue, why it matters to me, why I act on climate, to use the hashtag, I found that often people would suddenly be listening more closely. Then I become a person just like them, grappling with a complicated issue, caring about my children just like them, and I think that opens up a space to make a human connection with people that maybe otherwise you might think you have nothing in common with them.

That happens a lot with scientists. They think, “How can I possibly talk to somebody who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old?” Or, “How can I possibly talk to somebody who hasn’t vaccinated their children?” This is one way to answer that question: to say, “Well, look, you have values, they have values, and it turns out actually many of those values may overlap. Those people who aren’t vaccinating their children, they love their children just as much as you do, but they have some kind of conceptual framework that has made them think that not vaccinating their children is an appropriate expression of their love. And if you can find a way to say, ‘Well, I love my children too and here’s why I vaccinate my children’ — sometimes that can open up a space that would otherwise not be there.”

Not Cool Ep 26: Naomi Oreskes on trusting climate science - Future of Life Institute
https://futureoflife.org/2019/11/25/not-cool-ep-26-naomi-oreskes-on-trusting-climate-science/

video super znazornujicinnejistoty v klimaticky vede

A Skeptical Look at Climate Science
https://youtube.com/watch?v=R7FAAfK78_M&fbclid=IwAR3-s6WP7aLe5bMbk8xti5WiHQISGEecAk0V3bXzyjmKLmvX2gvq1HROMDI

In the videos, Stossel, and others appearing alongside him, cast doubt on the severity of climate change. In one video, titled Are We All Doomed?, Stossel replays excerpts from a panel discussion he moderated for The Heartland Institute, which has received funding from fossil fuel companies and groups opposed to regulations on greenhouse gases. The panel consisted of three climate skeptics—meteorologist Patrick Michaels, geographer David Legates, and astrophysicist Willie Soon—who proceeded to question whether anthropogenic climate change is causing sea level rise or increasing the power of hurricanes.

In another, titled Government Fueled Fires, Stossel discusses whether forest management practices or climate change were driving severity of California’s recent fire seasons, interviewing author Michael Shellenberger on the matter. Shellenberger is a self-proclaimed environmental activist who writes about “environmental alarmism” and claims that climate change “is not even our most serious environmental problem.”

Both videos were fact-checked by Climate Feedback, a subsidiary of French fact-checking organization and Facebook partner Science Feedback. The group found that Stossel’s climate change video contained “partly false information” because “speakers in the video rely on several inaccurate claims and use imprecise language that misleads viewers about the scientific understanding of climate change.”

Ex-Fox host claims Facebook defamed him by fact-checking climate change videos | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/ex-fox-host-claims-facebook-defamed-him-by-fact-checking-climate-change-videos

TUHO:

We focus here on a recent such initiative, which gained notoriety between the second half of 2019 and the first half of 2020. We show that its promoters and signatories generally display an extremely low level of scientific activity within the field of climate change.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2021.1875727

Dva roky starsi - Ivan Brezina, Reflex a tentokrat po Oregonske deklaraci, Lipske petici a dalsich a dalsich prichazi Evropska deklarace .]] Tusim, ze jsme si tu o ni taky psali, ale nejak nemuzu dohledat.

Tohle Gretu nepotěší: „Žádná klimatická nouze neexistuje,“ říkají vědci | Reflex.cz
https://www.reflex.cz/clanek/komentare/98073/tohle-gretu-nepotesi-zadna-klimaticka-nouze-neexistuje-rikaji-vedci.html

Murdoch’s News Corp has spent the past 15 years mitigating its own climate risk while giving media outlets like Fox News carte blanche to deny climate change altogether.

Rupert Murdoch Has Known We’ve Been in a Climate Emergency Since 2006, Documents Show
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7byqw/rupert-murdoch-climate-change-fox-news-news-corp

neco zase ze zakouti bizarnosti internetu

My Němci pro vás zachráníme planetu | The Conservative
https://theconservative.online/article/my-nmci-pro-vas-zachranime-planetu

Neco z hlubin internetu, co na me kdosi vytahl ve FB diskuzi. Featuring Frederick Seitz a Willie Soon, aneb frontline zoldaci fosil prumyslu .))

Před časem (datum prvního zveřejnění je na webu těžko zjistitelné) se na serveru Oregonského ústavu vědy a medicíny objevila stránka, která možná měla vliv na rozhodnutí vlády USA prozatím nepodepisovat žádné dohody, které by je zavazovaly ke snížení emisí oxidu uhličitého. Pod průvodním dopisem, který celou akci provází, je podepsán pan profesor Frederick Seitz, bývalý president Národní akademie věd USA a emeritní profesor Rockefellerovy university. V následujícím textu nabízím svůj nekvalitní překlad části jedné z podstránek tohoto serveru (můj překlad celé podstránky včetně seznamu literatury, na kterou se text odvolává, je zde). Autory původního textu jsou:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Anti Global Warming Petition Project
http://www1.fs.cvut.cz/cz/U12110/hlavac/pproject/

TUHO: Ja jsem to shlidnul.
Dokud zeleni (nejen SZ, ale cela ta socialne-kulturni bublina od Patrika po GP) nebudou podporovat JE, aplikaci technologii ktere jsou, referovani o bezpecnosti (tj. treba nevyvazet dezinfo do lokalit kde se ma dojit ke stavbe uloziste jaderneho odpadu) a podporovat vyvoj, jsou stejne toxicti jako Sevcik.
Tim ze na jedne strane hovori o nutnosti zmeny ktera bude neco stat a na druhe strane proti JE argumentuji tim ze je draha, klesaji na uroven tech co v jedne vete reknou ze klimaticke zmeny zpusobene clovekem neexistujou a v druhe vete zahlasi ze bude alespon vic teplo a budou nam tu rust lepsi broskve.

PETER_PAN: ja to nevidel cely, ale to, ze se na nejchudsi poradne nemysli me stve taky. ale imho sevcik na ne kasle jeste vic ,))

TUHO: S tim co pises tak souhlasim!
Muj puvodni prispevek (abych nerozbijel diskuzi, sorry za smazani) byl o tom ze se Sevcikem souhlasim s tim ze ty opatreni zasahnout nejchudci a chude (a ja dodavam pracujici tridu ve sluzbach). Take souhlasim s tema 2 zminkama ohledne jaderne energetiky.

Jinak je to blbec, o tom zadna.