11 ms·

Climate change scares me so much yet I feel completely helpless that I rather hear nothing about it. The effects have been known for years but those in power co

by anc84 11y ago

Climate change scares me so much yet I feel completely helpless that I rather hear nothing about it. The effects have been known for years but those in power completely ignore or even sabotage attempts to act. What's the point in hearing about it if there is practically nothing I can do but worry?

jensen123 11y ago
Well, you can at least move to some other place that will be less affected by it. For example, if you currently live in Florida, you could move to Michigan. So, I think it's useful to hear about it.
- jonsen 11y ago
  How would you predict local effects? A change in climate is a change in overall dynamics. Precise local effects is not at all predictable, I think.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    There are regional climate models. But at least sea level is relatively straightforward. Even the gravitational and geostatic effects of large chunks of ice. And getting further from the equator will also be generally good.
- pascalo 11y ago
  Or you get used to it early by moving to a place like Adelaide, Australia, where you 3 or so have 42C plus days in a row in summer and they already have built a desalination plant during the last proper drought.
- tonyedgecombe 11y ago
  It's interesting that people consider flooding the biggest problem, I would have though wide spread crop failures would be the main problem.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    And the wars and mass refugee movements that would rapidly follow.
    - rapind 11y ago
      This. We're in for a rough ride.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Yes, there is that. Famines and population crashes are likely. But growing conditions will improve further north, or south. Maybe move to Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, Argentina or Chile :) There's a lot of Siberia.
    - taberiand 11y ago
      There's no soil in Siberia
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Sure there is. It's just frozen.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        It is there and Siberia totally turns green in summer. It's just that permafrost only permits grass and dwarf trees, and even where there is no permafrost agriculture is not feasible. Greenhouses work just fine, tho.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > I would have though wide spread crop failures would be the main problem. It's like you are assuming harvests would go bad everywhere. Actually there are places where you can't grow food right now where you would be able to grow food next once the temperature increases.
    - 11y ago
feketegy 11y ago
Yes, the climate change has in some cases catastrophic effects. I'm not a climate change denier nor skeptic, but I think the general population are too pessimistic regarding this change. Pessimistic in a sense that we always extrapolate the future with present technologies. People in 1950 predicted the same pessimistic doomsday by the year 2000; and what happened? People adapted and overcame the situation. Of course if technology hadn't changed since 1950 we would all be "doomed" by the year 2000. So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. People will always come up with new technologies and they will adapt to the situation. Pessimists have a very unreliable track record, I'm not saying don't worry about the climate now, but I would love that everybody would recognize the danger, face it and have a more optimistic outlook for the future.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  > So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. Who specifically is saying this? I’ve read a lot of predictions and speculation by climate scientists, but never anything remotely like “less than 30 years before we die as a species”. > People in 1950 predicted the same pessimistic doomsday by the year 2000 I haven’t seen these supposed pessimists’ reports from 1950 predicting “doomsday” by 2000. Maybe you can link to the specific prediction you are referring to? This historical summary from the American Institute of Physics might help, https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public.htm https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public.htm Most of the work in the 50s–70s led the experts in the field to say, paraphrased, “there’s something serious going on here, and we’d better study it carefully ASAP and figure out how to mitigate our impact, or things could get bad.” The topic wasn’t really a serious concern to the general public until the 1980s, by which time there was starting to be broad agreement among experts. Since then, we’ve filled in a lot of additional details, and there is a strong “scientific consensus” that global warming is a real effect, caused by humans, which will have dramatic consequences if we continue down our current path.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > > So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. > Who specifically is saying this? In this thread, madaxe_again: 'Our extinction is coming, and the only tragedy is all the other life we'll take with us.' > I haven’t seen these supposed pessimists’ reports from 1950 predicting “doomsday” by 2000. The so-called 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' has been predicting Doomsday since 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock My prediction? In twenty years we'll look back on global warming like we do on D&D suicides, satanic ritual abuse and militias: just another instance of mass hysteria.
sd8f9iu 11y ago
I often see on this site the notion that the media should give us accurate, objective takes on the news, without playing to the public's fears and superficial desires. And yet here you say you'd rather not have to see something that scares you. The goal of the news should be to inform, not to comfort.
lmm 11y ago
At the very least you can vote - it's not exactly a politically neutral issue.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Eh? Sure it is. All politicians agree that fossil is good, all other energy sources are bad. This'll be the case for as long as people will take bribes and as long as humans believe the "he's a PARTY X member so I will vote for him" sham. This is how you end up with a 28 year old MP who has never worked and thinks the poor can just move into their country homes if things are too rough in town. Everyone has a game estate, no? Climate - no hope. There's literally nobody to vote for who even has climate on their agenda - it's just not important to the man on the street. Now, where your middle eastern neighbour puts his penis, and what plants the kids next door burn and inhale - THAT matters!
  - Nutmog 11y ago
    I'm not an America, but I understand that there are always independent candidates. Maybe you don't notice them because they aren't buying so much advertising. Try voting according to your own research instead of what the paid advertisements tell you to. Many people who would support an independent presidential candidate decide not to because the thing they want the most, above all else, is to keep their pet enemy party out of power. They'll even vote against their own interests and politics to try to achieve that. Yet their pet enemy party (democrat or republican) always wins every now and then regardless. So it's a futile effort with no long term value.
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      This is the UK. Independent candidates tend to get nowhere fast. Main parties all oppose change. Greens oppose nuclear and have a weird political agenda bolted on to their environmental policies. Tell me about that realistic alternative again?
      - Nutmog 11y ago
madaxe_again 11y ago
The really sad thing is that when those forces critical to resolving this (governments, corporate interests, the majority of the global public) finally come around to the idea that climate change exists, they won't be interested in solving it - they'll blame their neighbours, refuse to change themselves, and will go to war. Our extinction is coming, and the only tragedy is all the other life we'll take with us. We're just not that great, and our behaviour is "primate basic" to the extreme. Children playing with matches.
- megalodon 11y ago
  > they'll blame their neighbours, refuse to change themselves, and will go to war. Seems like a good description of the state of the world right now.
  - terryf 11y ago
    Given that we are living in what is probably the most peaceful time since dawn of man your statement doesn't really make that much sense regarding the war part. As for bickering and blaming others, sure it is annoying but somehow it has led humanity to an era where life is vastly better than it has ever been for more humans than ever before. So it's weird, yeah.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  finally come around to the idea that climate change exists Yes... they somehow impose carbon taxes, go to climate summits and make up protocols to agree to but none of them believe in climate change.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Acts speak far more loudly than words - if those protocols meant anything they'd have been adhered to, rather than utterly disregarded. The US wouldn't even ratify Kyoto.
- derrickdirge 11y ago
  Are other people made very uncomfortable by people like this looking down their nose at the entire species? I'm just not sure what these levels of defeatism and misanthropy get you.
Nutmog 11y ago
I think that's a result of the culturally unacceptable idea of geoengineering. People worry that promoting those ideas might stop people like you from worrying and lack of worry could lead to everyone emitting more greenhouse gasses. I think if an emergency happens, we'll be capable enough of mitigating it in the short term until we sort out new agricultural land, move cities, etc. You can move a city in a couple of decades - see most big Chinese cities for proof.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ciconia 11y ago
There's really no reason to feel helpless. You (and everyone else for that matter) can do your part to fight global warming, of which the causes are well known: stop eating meat and dairy, drive less, fly less, and generally consume less. As far as I'm concerned, "blame the government" is really a poor excuse.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Are you sure that's the optimal behavior for everyone? If the entire developed world took this advice, the result would be economically devastating, particularly in places like China. A poor person in China cooks with coal instead of electricity from wind or solar because it's cheaper and energy costs represent a huge fraction of his daily expenses. A well-to-do person in Connecticut doesn't mind that his electricity bill is much higher because of carbon taxes or renewables mandates because energy costs are a much smaller fraction of his expenses, and well-worth a cooler world for his children. I am convinced that a richer world is much more likely to both reduce CO2 and better adapt to rising temperatures than a poorer world. It will also have the virtue of being a nicer place to live. This is a long way to say the goal of policy should be reduced carbon intensity, not reduced growth.
skylan_q 11y ago
Climate change scares me so much It shouldn't. The climate has always been changing. Do that thing that humans do: be adaptable.
- lbebber 11y ago
  Of course it should - if it gets severe enought, even if humanity makes it, lots of people will die.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > Of course it should - if it gets severe enought, even if humanity makes it, lots of people will die. I imagine that if lots of people are dying, humanity — that is, the quality of being humane — will not make it: it'll be a riot of chaos, cannibalism, murder &c. Mankind might make it, but humanity won't.
geraldoramos 11y ago
Help us at: http://warming.world http://warming.world (we feel the same)

by anc84 11y ago

jensen123 11y ago

Well, you can at least move to some other place that will be less affected by it. For example, if you currently live in Florida, you could move to Michigan. So, I think it's useful to hear about it.

jonsen 11y ago
How would you predict local effects? A change in climate is a change in overall dynamics. Precise local effects is not at all predictable, I think.
- mirimir 11y ago
  There are regional climate models. But at least sea level is relatively straightforward. Even the gravitational and geostatic effects of large chunks of ice. And getting further from the equator will also be generally good.
pascalo 11y ago
Or you get used to it early by moving to a place like Adelaide, Australia, where you 3 or so have 42C plus days in a row in summer and they already have built a desalination plant during the last proper drought.
tonyedgecombe 11y ago
It's interesting that people consider flooding the biggest problem, I would have though wide spread crop failures would be the main problem.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  And the wars and mass refugee movements that would rapidly follow.
  - rapind 11y ago
    This. We're in for a rough ride.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes, there is that. Famines and population crashes are likely. But growing conditions will improve further north, or south. Maybe move to Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, Argentina or Chile :) There's a lot of Siberia.
  - taberiand 11y ago
    There's no soil in Siberia
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Sure there is. It's just frozen.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      It is there and Siberia totally turns green in summer. It's just that permafrost only permits grass and dwarf trees, and even where there is no permafrost agriculture is not feasible. Greenhouses work just fine, tho.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > I would have though wide spread crop failures would be the main problem. It's like you are assuming harvests would go bad everywhere. Actually there are places where you can't grow food right now where you would be able to grow food next once the temperature increases.
  - 11y ago

feketegy 11y ago

Yes, the climate change has in some cases catastrophic effects. I'm not a climate change denier nor skeptic, but I think the general population are too pessimistic regarding this change. Pessimistic in a sense that we always extrapolate the future with present technologies. People in 1950 predicted the same pessimistic doomsday by the year 2000; and what happened? People adapted and overcame the situation. Of course if technology hadn't changed since 1950 we would all be "doomed" by the year 2000. So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. People will always come up with new technologies and they will adapt to the situation. Pessimists have a very unreliable track record, I'm not saying don't worry about the climate now, but I would love that everybody would recognize the danger, face it and have a more optimistic outlook for the future.

jacobolus 11y ago
> So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. Who specifically is saying this? I’ve read a lot of predictions and speculation by climate scientists, but never anything remotely like “less than 30 years before we die as a species”. > People in 1950 predicted the same pessimistic doomsday by the year 2000 I haven’t seen these supposed pessimists’ reports from 1950 predicting “doomsday” by 2000. Maybe you can link to the specific prediction you are referring to? This historical summary from the American Institute of Physics might help, https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public.htm https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public.htm Most of the work in the 50s–70s led the experts in the field to say, paraphrased, “there’s something serious going on here, and we’d better study it carefully ASAP and figure out how to mitigate our impact, or things could get bad.” The topic wasn’t really a serious concern to the general public until the 1980s, by which time there was starting to be broad agreement among experts. Since then, we’ve filled in a lot of additional details, and there is a strong “scientific consensus” that global warming is a real effect, caused by humans, which will have dramatic consequences if we continue down our current path.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > > So by saying that we only have 10 or 15 or 30 years more before we all die as a species, because of what we did to the Earth is non-sense. > Who specifically is saying this? In this thread, madaxe_again: 'Our extinction is coming, and the only tragedy is all the other life we'll take with us.' > I haven’t seen these supposed pessimists’ reports from 1950 predicting “doomsday” by 2000. The so-called 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' has been predicting Doomsday since 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock My prediction? In twenty years we'll look back on global warming like we do on D&D suicides, satanic ritual abuse and militias: just another instance of mass hysteria.

sd8f9iu 11y ago

I often see on this site the notion that the media should give us accurate, objective takes on the news, without playing to the public's fears and superficial desires. And yet here you say you'd rather not have to see something that scares you. The goal of the news should be to inform, not to comfort.

lmm 11y ago

At the very least you can vote - it's not exactly a politically neutral issue.

madaxe_again 11y ago
Eh? Sure it is. All politicians agree that fossil is good, all other energy sources are bad. This'll be the case for as long as people will take bribes and as long as humans believe the "he's a PARTY X member so I will vote for him" sham. This is how you end up with a 28 year old MP who has never worked and thinks the poor can just move into their country homes if things are too rough in town. Everyone has a game estate, no? Climate - no hope. There's literally nobody to vote for who even has climate on their agenda - it's just not important to the man on the street. Now, where your middle eastern neighbour puts his penis, and what plants the kids next door burn and inhale - THAT matters!
- Nutmog 11y ago
  I'm not an America, but I understand that there are always independent candidates. Maybe you don't notice them because they aren't buying so much advertising. Try voting according to your own research instead of what the paid advertisements tell you to. Many people who would support an independent presidential candidate decide not to because the thing they want the most, above all else, is to keep their pet enemy party out of power. They'll even vote against their own interests and politics to try to achieve that. Yet their pet enemy party (democrat or republican) always wins every now and then regardless. So it's a futile effort with no long term value.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    This is the UK. Independent candidates tend to get nowhere fast. Main parties all oppose change. Greens oppose nuclear and have a weird political agenda bolted on to their environmental policies. Tell me about that realistic alternative again?
    - Nutmog 11y ago

madaxe_again 11y ago

The really sad thing is that when those forces critical to resolving this (governments, corporate interests, the majority of the global public) finally come around to the idea that climate change exists, they won't be interested in solving it - they'll blame their neighbours, refuse to change themselves, and will go to war. Our extinction is coming, and the only tragedy is all the other life we'll take with us. We're just not that great, and our behaviour is "primate basic" to the extreme. Children playing with matches.

megalodon 11y ago
> they'll blame their neighbours, refuse to change themselves, and will go to war. Seems like a good description of the state of the world right now.
- terryf 11y ago
  Given that we are living in what is probably the most peaceful time since dawn of man your statement doesn't really make that much sense regarding the war part. As for bickering and blaming others, sure it is annoying but somehow it has led humanity to an era where life is vastly better than it has ever been for more humans than ever before. So it's weird, yeah.
skylan_q 11y ago
finally come around to the idea that climate change exists Yes... they somehow impose carbon taxes, go to climate summits and make up protocols to agree to but none of them believe in climate change.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Acts speak far more loudly than words - if those protocols meant anything they'd have been adhered to, rather than utterly disregarded. The US wouldn't even ratify Kyoto.
derrickdirge 11y ago
Are other people made very uncomfortable by people like this looking down their nose at the entire species? I'm just not sure what these levels of defeatism and misanthropy get you.

Nutmog 11y ago

I think that's a result of the culturally unacceptable idea of geoengineering. People worry that promoting those ideas might stop people like you from worrying and lack of worry could lead to everyone emitting more greenhouse gasses. I think if an emergency happens, we'll be capable enough of mitigating it in the short term until we sort out new agricultural land, move cities, etc. You can move a city in a couple of decades - see most big Chinese cities for proof.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ciconia 11y ago

There's really no reason to feel helpless. You (and everyone else for that matter) can do your part to fight global warming, of which the causes are well known: stop eating meat and dairy, drive less, fly less, and generally consume less. As far as I'm concerned, "blame the government" is really a poor excuse.

twoodfin 11y ago
Are you sure that's the optimal behavior for everyone? If the entire developed world took this advice, the result would be economically devastating, particularly in places like China. A poor person in China cooks with coal instead of electricity from wind or solar because it's cheaper and energy costs represent a huge fraction of his daily expenses. A well-to-do person in Connecticut doesn't mind that his electricity bill is much higher because of carbon taxes or renewables mandates because energy costs are a much smaller fraction of his expenses, and well-worth a cooler world for his children. I am convinced that a richer world is much more likely to both reduce CO2 and better adapt to rising temperatures than a poorer world. It will also have the virtue of being a nicer place to live. This is a long way to say the goal of policy should be reduced carbon intensity, not reduced growth.

skylan_q 11y ago

Climate change scares me so much It shouldn't. The climate has always been changing. Do that thing that humans do: be adaptable.

lbebber 11y ago
Of course it should - if it gets severe enought, even if humanity makes it, lots of people will die.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > Of course it should - if it gets severe enought, even if humanity makes it, lots of people will die. I imagine that if lots of people are dying, humanity — that is, the quality of being humane — will not make it: it'll be a riot of chaos, cannibalism, murder &c. Mankind might make it, but humanity won't.

geraldoramos 11y ago

Help us at: http://warming.world http://warming.world (we feel the same)