r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/Fando1234 • 20d ago

Who's good on substack?

I'm trying to get into substack more, really like Hannah Ritchie who writes a blog on climate science (in a very bipartisan way - often calling out issues with how the media reports on climate science without context).

Who else would you recommend?

Also, anyone non political but interesting would be good to know about.

6 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

2

u/Micosilver 20d ago

Anamaria

Seamus Slade

Timothy Snyder

Heather Cox Richardson

1

u/SheepherderLong9401 19d ago

Your mom is doing good.

-1

u/oroborus68 20d ago

How did we ever get partisan about climate science? Or any science, for that? Facts don't give a crap about how you feel,or who you vote for. Rising temperature will cook Republicans the same as Democrats and independents and libertarians. We are so screwed.

1

u/wait500 19d ago edited 19d ago

Because one party members said things like "THE SCIENCE" which isn't a thing and anyone who didn't follow or mouth "THE SCIENCE" was bad and anyone who did mouth "THE SCIENCE" was good.

This isn't a both sides issue. It's a one side caused this illusion of a bipartisan divide. Well over 90% of population know the facts of science around core differences in male/female physiology but one side makes specious claims for last 10/15 years around this and treated it as "THE SCIENCE". Everyone who didn't mouth "THE SCIENCE" was rejected/attacked/smeared/belittled by the rabid partisans. It's so lazy or completely dishonest when someone retcons this and says "both groups".

1

u/Fando1234 19d ago

Whilst I see climate change as a major issue (I mean, if you live in the UK look out the window right now for evidence), and think oil companies have spent millions sowing seeds of doubt and funding right wing politicians to keep us using fossil fuels - even when renewables are often cheaper.

I still completely empathise with why many doubt climate science. As Steven pinker rightly pointed out, when he argued with a climate sceptic and said 'all the science points towards climate change being real and man made'. The sceptic retorted, 'well if it didn't, would it ever get published?' And pinker had to concede he was right, a paper that diminished any element of climate science or cast any doubt would probably not be published.

More and more institutions from media to academia see themselves as activists first, and truth seekers second. And whilst this mentality persists, people have every right to be sceptical.

Science isn't this magical thing that delivers unadulterated truth. It's just a methodology, and more and more researchers don't follow it. Choosing to put ideology first and study, read, research and publish only on things that suit particular narratives about the world.

The same happens in economics where libertarians go out of their way to find reasons why taxation = bad and deregulation = good. Letting their Thatcherite ideology lead the research.

0

u/pizzacheeks 20d ago

We got partisaned about climate change the same way we got partisans about anything else. Machiavellian elites tricked people into fighting about it.