you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 63 points 2 years ago (25 children)

Seems like "barrier", "status", "polarization", "excluded", and "historically" are gonna hit some unrelated fields

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Amerikan right wingers have never given the tiniest fuck if their policies have a disastrous fallout for education and science. Fascists in particular see intellectual impoverishment of the people as an additional benefit, remember German Physics?

    I'm honestly surprised this largely sticks to gender studies and research into racism etc., would have expected them to take the axe to climate science as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    They are doing that one abit more subtly. They can't challenge it directly, as that combats their opinions of themselves as 'scientific' but I am seeing papers coming out of Midwestern ecology schools (which are subsequently pushed hard on social media), that are pushing forward a hypothesis that 'we just don't know enough about the carbon cycle, there are lots of unaccounted carbon creating beings that could be helping with the warming', as well as people saying that because there have been no apocalyptic universal Hollywood spectacal collapse that 'the climate scientists got all their predictions wrong'.

    It'll creep into mainstream thought over time, especially as it becomes too late to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    'we just don't know enough about the carbon cycle, there are lots of unaccounted carbon creating beings that could be helping with the warming',

    sounds like eco-genocide...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They are usually talking about ant-colonies or other micro-ecologies. Tbf, there is likely alot of unaccounted CO2 production from those areas, but there is no way that it comes even close to the amount of CO2 industrial processes (particularly farming) create. It's just throwing chaff and is horseshit, but people want to rationalize it as not our fault, so they will grasp at even bullshit explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Things like ant colonies haven't increased the amount of atmospheric co2 as well, as the carbon has releases has largely been pulled from the air, whereas the fossil fuel industry involves releasing historically trapped carbon (which did come from the air but a billion years ago), increasing the net co2 in the short term

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    there have been no apocalyptic universal Hollywood spectacle collapse

    What do you call the LA wildfires?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    They aren't 'universal' (other than the studio, yuk yuk) enough, as apocalyptic as they should be. Already seeing people just blaming California state government, and not connecting it to the awful smog and fires coming down from Canada, because memory is basically a month for most.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I am seeing papers coming out of Midwestern ecology schools

    Can you link one of those? Love to know what I'm up against.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Almost any of them could hit unrelated fields. "Female" could be referring to female plants.

    The flow chart does specify that decisions are made on banned terms AND context, so I guess that's how they'll avoid retracting denying nearly everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    This is for funding grant proposals, so they wouldn't be retracting anything. Doesn't look like they're looking at context at all, based on the flowchart, a proposal with a title like "Effects of colloidal silver on female Cannabis plants" would get rejected in the first step.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    But the flowchart says "keywords and context" at each of the steps. That's what I'm referring to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    As a programmer, that flowchart looks to me like the precursor to an automated system. The only way they could check the context in an automated fashion would be with some kind of AI, whose efficacy in doing so is going to be dubious at best given the language difference between most text on the Internet and grant proposals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)