Part of it that the commenters so far missed is that to do anything about climate change will affect profits for the oil industry and cause corporations aplenty to have to come up with new manufacturing materials and processes. It also means consuming less. The solutions are seen as a threat to owners of capital who will fight until the earth is in flames to do anything about it. Our politicians and many media sources are owned by these people.

the oil industry

Half the country stopped believing in science and keeps electing politicians who do damage.

An answer which fits both "sides" with each side claiming the other side is the one doing damage.

Only if you ignore reality and redefine science with an absurdly narrow definition (mostly focused on trans folks) and ignore everything else. One side claims absolutely ironclad proven wrong things like "ectopic pregnancies can just be moved and saved", "vaccines cause autism", but because they have a narrow interpretation of sex and gender, they think that allows them to claim "SCIENCE, BITCH". No, just no.

Corona conclusively proved that Democrats are every bit as capable of scientism as Republicans.

People - even leading scientists - who questioned natural origin, mandatory lockdowns, school closures, vaccine effectiveness, or any of a dozen other narratives were demonized and attacked in the name of science. "Do your own research" became a phrase of mockery, while "trust 'the' science" was used as a thought terminating cliché.

And neither party are really taking climate science seriously, it's just that one pays lip service a bit more.

This is just not true. School closures worked well for preventing spread. Vaccines actually solved the covid issue. Lockdowns did worked, actually.

And no, there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen.

You aren't engaging with any of my points, just repeating the dogma - which helps proves my point.

> School closures worked well for preventing spread.

Show me the data.

And, at what cost? Was the juice worth the squeeze? ... How many teachers have you talked to lately?

And it's an undeniable fact, that conversation (among many others) was heavily suppressed. Researchers who raised it were shadow-banned from Twitter, Facebook etc.

> Vaccines actually solved the covid issue.

Or, basically everyone already got corona and now there's a level of herd immunity; like with every global pandemic ever. Did you see any data on this? Or are you 'trusting the science', which you haven't actually seen.

> Lockdowns did worked, actually.

Oh? So, you can point to countries where there were no lockdowns and they got torn apart, can you? ... Because researchers who have looked at that question say it isn't actually that clear [0].

The purpose of lockdowns was to slow the spread so that chronically underfunded and privatized healthcare systems wouldn't utterly collapse. Fair enough - but it wasn't presented that way, and investment in public health hasn't been improved since. Instead, most systems in the West seem stretched more than ever, while we have plenty of money for sending Israel bombs and weapons, or building concentration camps, or deporting people at ludicrous expense, etc.

... But that wasn't even what I was talking about - I was talking about how even questioning mandatory lockdowns was enough to make people lose their jobs, and get censored from mainstream and social media. It's not very scientific to censor scientists.

> there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen.

And Democrats pay lip service to stopping them, but don't seem very effective. And when something like Deepwater Horizon happens, or the DAPL protests, or support for fracking is an issue, where is the Dem leadership? Quietly backing the fossil fuel companies, every single time.

What's needed is radical change, immediately. That's the view of basically every scientist. Democrats pretend not to understand that. It's nowhere near good enough, and I see no reason to expect change; not the slightest glimmer of hope for what's necessary.

0 - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-th...

> And, at what cost? Was the juice worth the squeeze? ... How many teachers have you talked to lately?

Basically, blue states that had more of them had results getting almost as bad as red states without them have it. Lives were saved at some acceptable lowering of test scores.

> And it's an undeniable fact, that conversation (among many others) was heavily suppressed.

Nonsense. The points of your side were repeated and laundered and repeated and defended and then again. Other people telling you that you are wrong is not supression.

And also, bullshit with researchers being censored. Especially hypocritical from someone conservative or republican.

> basically everyone already got corona and now there's a level of herd immunity

Not true. Vaccines came, covid went away. Babies cried about vaccines.

> Basically, blue states that had more of them had results getting almost as bad as red states without them have it. Lives were saved at some acceptable lowering of test scores.

Are you seriously asserting that school closures are the difference between red state and blue state mortality rates??

> Nonsense. The points of your side were repeated and laundered and repeated and defended and then again. ... bullshit with researchers being censored

The censorship was vast and is well documented, ie, [0], [1], [2], etc. Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.

> Not true. Vaccines came, covid went away. Babies cried about vaccines.

Did covid 'go away' in the global south, where they didn't have vaccines? Hmmmmm......

0 - https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/biden-administration-repeate...

1 - https://www.thefp.com/p/i-fought-government-censorship-and-w...

2 - https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/01/12/why-did-scientists-...

> Are you seriously asserting that school closures are the difference between red state and blue state mortality rates??

What's your explanation for the difference?

> The censorship was vast and is well documented, ie, [0], [1], [2], etc. Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.

I don't know about you, but I don't use Facebook for science research.

Was there censorship on, idk, arxiv regarding Covid?

I think you're the one who mentioned it up the comment chain, but I agree with the view that the messaging coming from (well, everywhere) is divisive and dogmatic.

> Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.

Facebook also pushes false narratives. Facebook and other large companies drive engagement above all else, and engagement is found on the fringes.

I really like the parent comments you made. They didn't come off as "one-sided" (in any direction), but more so "let's step back and think about it." Kind of like a blameless post-mortem, blameless in the way of saying it wasn't _our_ faults, the general public, because who are we to really fight against these companies who have so successfully weaponized our basic emotions and values against ourselves? And what can we do to "wake up" (not in a "red-pill" or "sheeple" way) and collectively see that all of these narratives that we are fed are for no common person's best interests, and that we've been had, and how can we work together next time (if we even can work together on the same platforms which pull us apart)?

I know that the realization that I came to after reflecting on everything that happened over the past (5, 10, 15) years is that the only thing that _I_ can do is focus my energy towards my community - my friends, my neighbors, those people who I can in someway touch without relying on corporations with ulterior motives to stand between us.

And, like you alluded to, to also accept that most things are out of my control. Nothing I do will ever sway climate change, for instance. An example that sticks out to me is Greta Thornberg. She had what seemed to be very pure intentions about making a stand for a better future (whether that is or isn't the case isn't the focus here), but, no matter what side of the issue a person falls on, the main story surrounding her turned into questioning her - her motivations, her knowledge, her parents; the narrative given to 'conservative'-leaning people were all of her flaws, and the narrative given to 'liberal'-leaning people was the manufactured outrage about what the 'conservatives' were saying - and then, Boom: now nobody is actually talking about the issue, and the divide grows wider, and the focus is taken off of the companies who indisputably take advantage of the world (can anyone actually make an argument that the waste poured into rivers, for example, is _good_ for the inhabitants of the earth?).

> can anyone make the argument...

Yeah, bud

It's good for me

Silently smirking Sisyphus

Climate change, wars for profit, mass censorship and surveillance, etc, aren't blameless issues - there are people doing these things, people like you and I (only wealthier). Fossil fuel companies knew for a fact that they were causing climate change, and responded by poisoning the global conversation while suppressing alternatives.

What's between us and a better world is class awareness. So, for example, when you say things like "Facebook and other large companies drive engagement above all else", you're missing a major piece of the puzzle.

The daily atrocities in Gaza could drive tremendous engagement on Facebook, were they not heavily censored and suppressed.

Same goes for mainstream media. Look how unanimous the opinion of the media and political class was against Luigi. Look how they chorused in unison with smears against Jill Stein, or against Assange, Snowden etc. Again, all people who had their stories suppressed on social media as well.

This also explains how with Greta "the main story surrounding her turned into questioning her" - there's an agenda that unites the tiny number of billionaires who own basically all media in the West. The element of class even explains neatly why the media stopped covering Greta - because she started connecting the world's issues to capitalism and inequality. (You know, like MLK did, right before he was assassinated.)

So please don't think I have a message of blamelessness for the world's issues. There's more than enough blame to go around, and the problems won't be fixed if we keep ignoring the problems stemming from massive wealth inequality.

From your own link: "He also points to a 2021 study that attempted to quantify the effect of specific government interventions on the spread of Covid-19, using data from 41 countries. It reveals that certain aspects of national lockdowns might have been more impactful than others. The researchers found, for example, that banning gatherings of more than 10 people or closing schools and universities was especially effective, reducing transmission by more than 35% on average. Shutting restaurants and bars seemed to make slightly less difference to transmission, however.

What's more, the researchers suggest that adding a strict stay-at-home order on top of such measures "only had a small additional effect" in terms of slowing down Covid-19 – estimated at below 17.5% on average."

> You aren't engaging with any of my points, just repeating the dogma - which helps proves my point.

Frankly, I think we're all very tired of engaging with anti-Covid response points which have been debunked to hell and back, and then back to hell again.

Scientific evidence is not "dogma" just because you, intuitively, disagree with it. That's fine. The real world does not follow very simple logical frameworks. It's complex, it's messy.

Was our, or anyone's, Covid response perfect? Of course not. But this was a novel disease, one and in which our understanding of it changed day by day. Read that a few times over and you'll begin to understand why we did what we did.

It became a 'wedge issue'. A common tactic in 2-party politics is for a campaign to push their candidate to become indistinguishable from their opponent, and then pick one issue that divides the voter base, hopefully in their favor. It has to be something that your party can rally around and their party can't compromise on. Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation, while liberals are usually pro environment and regulation, hence the battle of climate change.

> anti government regulation

Unless it's regulation around one's body, then they absolutely love it to the bone. Who can go in which restroom? What genitals you can have to be able to participate in what sporting events? What to do with a lump of cells trying to kill you? What to do with a lump of cells that has killed you? They have very strong opinions on that they will make laws for.

>Lump of cells

If you're going to be reductionist you should at least be consistently reductionist otherwise you're just making noise. The same argument can be used to justify any murder.

Non viable non functional non sentient lump of cells, that clear enough?

You think mentally limited people aren't sentient nor viable? Yeah, you sound like a Nazi (T4 programme).

I'd like to hear your definition of sentience. It sounds like it's an unusual one.

> Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations.[3] It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, or complex thought processes. Some writers define sentience exclusively as the capacity for valenced (positive or negative) mental experiences, such as pain or pleasure.[4]

> Sentience is an important concept in ethics, as the ability to experience happiness or suffering often forms a basis for determining which entities deserve moral consideration, particularly in utilitarianism.[5]

For reference, a lump of cells part of fetus isn't sentient in any sense of that word you could imagine. A braindead woman being kept alive as an incubator for a fetus isn't sentient either. A mentally/developmentally challenged person is sentient.

> Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation,

Conservatives love government regulations. They do not like the kind of regulation that prevents frauds or prevents them from harming others.

But, they like it when government regulates personal lives of their perceived enemies, protects large businesses at the expense of poorer people.

The US has two political parties of roughly equal size.

One of those parties has gone completely off the rails into authoritarianism and science denial. Oligarchy is at the root of it: the barons can't sell "clean coal" and "drill, baby, drill" if climate change is seen to be tearing the world apart. Money über alles.

You'd think most people would be repulsed by such a party, but turns out that humans have a neat little exploit! Due to the fact that the parties are completely entrenched and about equally as popular, people intrinsically assume that their policies also have equal merit.

Hence our descent into shit.

Basically, it started with Reagan[0] and the Republicans equating environmentalism with leftist (read - Communist, and therefore evil) agitation (through its links with feminism and the hippie/antiwar movement) in order to court business interests who favor deregulation and lax environmental standards.

[0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...