3 ms·

See, your problem here is that you consider climate change something you can believe in or not, and consider it as such. But facts and climate processes have n

See, your problem here is that you consider climate change something you can believe in or not, and consider it as such. But facts and climate processes have no such bias and our understanding of these phenomena have increased greatly in the past decades. Here's the thing: the fearmongering is not only justified, it is underplayed. What do you think will happen to the planet when the climate patterns are taken out of a system of stable equilibrium? What happens when the ocean's acidity level crosses the historical threshold under which most of the oxygen-generating plankton on this planet has existed for hundreds of thousands of years? I'm sorry, but belief has nothing to do with it. We understand very well what the impact on each individual ecosystem this will have, and we have a fairly good idea that the negative interactions amongst each other are going to be even worse. Recent interviews with most climate scientists have shown that most are seriously depressed, and many have been literally contemplating suicide, or decided to not have children. And these are people who don't have any sort of political agenda in play and would rather live in a reasonably safe and sound world. The fundamental political problem is that people have difficulty understanding exponential phenomena. Climate change has been very much exponential given the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, and it has been predicted for a long time that the feedback cycles are going to be accelerating things more and more. Well, we're finally there. A ton of coral reef ecosystems are dying, most coastal ecosystems have changed because of ocean acidification. We're starting to see conditions of permanent drought in the Western USA, and so on and so forth for many different systems.

awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
your problem here is that you consider climate change something you can believe in or not, and consider it as such. GP didn't say anything like that. You're all jumping on him in a strawman beat-down party.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  >> your problem here is that you consider climate >> change something you can believe in or not, and >> consider it as such. > GP didn't say anything like that. You're all jumping > on him in a strawman beat-down party. bedhead: I believe in climate change
  - awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
    What?
bedhead 10y ago
I use the word "believe" because it is something that is inherently observable to me or you, whether you like it or not. You rely on other people to tell you it's real, so when you say "we understand" what you really mean is "people other than me understand". It's like saying I believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Can I observe it? No. But a few guys won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for discovering that this was true, so I believe them. In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world. You say we're "finally here" but the world is fine in the grand scheme of things - that is both observable and demonstrable. You can choose to be depressed and miserable if you want though; I couldn't get you to deviate from your beliefs any more than I could convince a Baptist minister that his religion is nonsense.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  > In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world. So basically you're choosing to willfully ignore the experts' opinions when they're freaking out after having literally spoken to the public for this for 3 decades and having warned of the consequences of inaction. No, your position is insanity. You're essentially denying things because your worldly observations end where your eyes stop seeing. If you went to the Andes and hiked and looked at the glaciers, your opinion would be completely different. If you went to Australian Reef and saw how literally most of the life that used to be there is now completely dead, your opinion would be different. If you were able to see the levels of the water tables in California, your opinion would be different. Your problem is that your vision is completely buffered by living in an environment mostly controlled by humans, buffered from the variance of the world.
  - bedhead 10y ago
    I'm sorry you're a miserable person. Your mind has been poisoned. It's not your fault.

awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago

your problem here is that you consider climate change something you can believe in or not, and consider it as such. GP didn't say anything like that. You're all jumping on him in a strawman beat-down party.

Jtsummers 10y ago
>> your problem here is that you consider climate >> change something you can believe in or not, and >> consider it as such. > GP didn't say anything like that. You're all jumping > on him in a strawman beat-down party. bedhead: I believe in climate change
- awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
  What?

bedhead 10y ago

I use the word "believe" because it is something that is inherently observable to me or you, whether you like it or not. You rely on other people to tell you it's real, so when you say "we understand" what you really mean is "people other than me understand". It's like saying I believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Can I observe it? No. But a few guys won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for discovering that this was true, so I believe them. In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world. You say we're "finally here" but the world is fine in the grand scheme of things - that is both observable and demonstrable. You can choose to be depressed and miserable if you want though; I couldn't get you to deviate from your beliefs any more than I could convince a Baptist minister that his religion is nonsense.

Daishiman 10y ago
> In any event, I'll gladly take the other side of any of these bets which predict complete and total anarchy. The despondency of the climate scientists you cite is validation how insane (literally) people have become over this, it's not additional evidence of the true state of the world. So basically you're choosing to willfully ignore the experts' opinions when they're freaking out after having literally spoken to the public for this for 3 decades and having warned of the consequences of inaction. No, your position is insanity. You're essentially denying things because your worldly observations end where your eyes stop seeing. If you went to the Andes and hiked and looked at the glaciers, your opinion would be completely different. If you went to Australian Reef and saw how literally most of the life that used to be there is now completely dead, your opinion would be different. If you were able to see the levels of the water tables in California, your opinion would be different. Your problem is that your vision is completely buffered by living in an environment mostly controlled by humans, buffered from the variance of the world.
- bedhead 10y ago
  I'm sorry you're a miserable person. Your mind has been poisoned. It's not your fault.