▲ 49 ▼ Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate? | Climate & Capitalism (climateandcapitalism.com) submitted 1 year ago by tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml to c/climate@slrpnk.net 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments No :)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 9 points 1 year ago (9 children) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines?wprov=sfla1 permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Legianus@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) So your answer is "Yes"? As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer "yes", and only 22 % answer "no" with the rest being indecisive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence. Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" - is not even backed up by its own citation Wikipedia is such a shithole... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) I think studies that look at the article's response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.) And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet? And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right? I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Legianus@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) So your answer is "Yes"? As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer "yes", and only 22 % answer "no" with the rest being indecisive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence. Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" - is not even backed up by its own citation Wikipedia is such a shithole... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) I think studies that look at the article's response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.) And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet? And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right? I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence. Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" - is not even backed up by its own citation Wikipedia is such a shithole... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" - is not even backed up by its own citation Wikipedia is such a shithole... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) I think studies that look at the article's response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.) And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet? And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right? I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.) And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet? And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right? I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.) And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet? And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right? I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 1 year ago You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯 permalink fedilink source parent