4 ms·

Obligatory disclaimer - I'm not arguing against anthropogenic climate change... That having been said, I think that some of this seeming confusion on the part

Obligatory disclaimer - I'm not arguing against anthropogenic climate change... That having been said, I think that some of this seeming confusion on the part non scientists/casual consumers of mass media news sources makes a bit of sense. Science reporting is usually poor quality - it goes for the sensational headlines and it often doesn't do a good job of differentiating fact from theory from prediction so when new evidence/data gets brought in to the mix, it becomes all too easy for the casual news consumer to be confused and feel like "the story is always changing"... And in some ways it is. That's what science does. It always builds on (or rejects) older ideas as better evidence becomes available. In the case of climate change, the narrative was "global warming" which, to a casual news consumer, could sound like warming will take place across the globe. Incorrect, yes, but the confusion is partially understandable, imho.

7952 11y ago
It doesn't help that climate change activists seem to rely so heavily on science as a way to win arguments on policy. Science just tells us what is happening and gives a way of predicting the future. It is not some silver bullet for deciding policy or persuading people to change their habits. We need people to be far more literate about the environment in general and understand why it is in their self interest to protect it.
- incongruity 11y ago
  But there's the rub... by and large, it's not in my personal interest to stop global warming. Short-run gains matter more to a lot of people AND many people who could change won't see the return on their investment (or their bad behavior) in their lifetime. (I should say, I'm not endorsing that thinking either... just noting that there's a challenge here, especially when one tries to frame climate change in terms of "self-interest")
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    This might be the one area where "think of the [grand]children" is a reasonable argument.
    - incongruity 11y ago
      It also would seem to be an argument for governmental intervention. Industry is unlikely to do it for the same reasons individuals are unlikely to consistently make good environmental choices... If ever there were a case, this may be it, assuming all of the predicted outcomes are actually going to come to pass, otherwise.
  - 7952 11y ago
    That is why I said "environmental literacy" rather than just climate change. Take fossil fuel as an example. Burning oil and coal creates emissions that are toxic or carcinogenic to humans. Thousands of people die every year or endure suffering as a result. As if that wasn't enough gas is quite expensive for many. We should all want clean cars and power stations because they could actually be better. But I agree that dry self interest is not enough, it needs to be backed up by some emotion. People need to feel ashamed of dirty technology and link it to the damage it causes. That is surely much easier when you focus on things less existential than climate change. Everyone knows someone who died of cancer, and fundraising for treatment is an ever present part of life. Completely destroying dirty fuel sources should just be an extension of that.

7952 11y ago

It doesn't help that climate change activists seem to rely so heavily on science as a way to win arguments on policy. Science just tells us what is happening and gives a way of predicting the future. It is not some silver bullet for deciding policy or persuading people to change their habits. We need people to be far more literate about the environment in general and understand why it is in their self interest to protect it.

incongruity 11y ago
But there's the rub... by and large, it's not in my personal interest to stop global warming. Short-run gains matter more to a lot of people AND many people who could change won't see the return on their investment (or their bad behavior) in their lifetime. (I should say, I'm not endorsing that thinking either... just noting that there's a challenge here, especially when one tries to frame climate change in terms of "self-interest")
- nitrogen 11y ago
  This might be the one area where "think of the [grand]children" is a reasonable argument.
  - incongruity 11y ago
    It also would seem to be an argument for governmental intervention. Industry is unlikely to do it for the same reasons individuals are unlikely to consistently make good environmental choices... If ever there were a case, this may be it, assuming all of the predicted outcomes are actually going to come to pass, otherwise.
- 7952 11y ago
  That is why I said "environmental literacy" rather than just climate change. Take fossil fuel as an example. Burning oil and coal creates emissions that are toxic or carcinogenic to humans. Thousands of people die every year or endure suffering as a result. As if that wasn't enough gas is quite expensive for many. We should all want clean cars and power stations because they could actually be better. But I agree that dry self interest is not enough, it needs to be backed up by some emotion. People need to feel ashamed of dirty technology and link it to the damage it causes. That is surely much easier when you focus on things less existential than climate change. Everyone knows someone who died of cancer, and fundraising for treatment is an ever present part of life. Completely destroying dirty fuel sources should just be an extension of that.