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.
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.
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.
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 🚯
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.
Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth
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.
I’m not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary
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.
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 🚯