5 ms·

Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism. I do wonder if it's a personal choice. By being in denial you do not have to make any changes to the way you live

by awjr 10y ago

Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism. I do wonder if it's a personal choice. By being in denial you do not have to make any changes to the way you live. Locally they wanted to increase recycling. The answer is to provide offical small bins (140l) that are collected only every two weeks, but collect recycling waste weekly. We've gone beyond the carrot and are now using the stick because many people simply do not want to change.

melling 10y ago
There's a large amount of effort put into denying climate change. There's even a movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg Kilimanjaro isn't losing snow because of global warming but because of deforestation, which I believe is true. https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanjaro-idUSTRE5B72AQ20091208 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanja...
- arethuza 10y ago
  That article suggests that both global warming and deforestation are factors in the loss of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro: "forests that have disappeared in the past 30 to 40 years on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes -- cut down by villagers for charcoal and open farmland -- were just as much to blame as rising temperatures worldwide" Anyway this would probably only be a big deal if Kilimanjaro was the only mountain worldwide where glaciers are reducing in size - people only appear to be picking on it because it appeared in "An Inconvenient Truth" and imagining that if that one argument is wrong then the whole edifice of global warming collapses. Which really isn't how science works.
7952 10y ago
I think social pressure plays an important role. People are more likely to protect the environment if that is common behaviour in their locality and social group. Policy like this is often more reactive to changing attitudes rather than being just a stick. I would love to see some data on social attitudes towards the environment. Are people starting to dislike big dirty cars?
nabla9 10y ago
Climate skepticism is Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. Political lobbying seems to be big part of the phenomenon. Poles Apart - The international reporting of climate scepticism http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-apart http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-... >It concludes that climate scepticism is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, found most frequently in the US and British newspapers, and explores the reasons why this is so.
- therpe1 10y ago
  Indeed. I think this is the key idea. The rest of the world does not have this aversion to science and I've noticed in France (until very, very recently) "climate skepticism" was rightly understood to be an oxymoron by everybody. There's something unique to the US and the UK[1] that really empowers this kind of "skepticism." People on Hacker News speak seriously of the "debate" but, really, they're actually talking about a very local media phenomenon. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015...
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Thank you for posting this. A international comparison was what I was hoping to see when I clicked on this article.
creaghpatr 10y ago
I rest easy knowing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have burned far more fossil fuels than I ever will in my entire life. When someone throws the 'denier' slur around, I throw a giant steak on my Big Green Egg, grass-fed for extra environmental impact. Edit: I just got off the set of a major motion picture and I've seen firsthand the incredible waste that goes into making movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" which isn't even a huge production. Don't even get me started on Leo's movies, those soundstages didn't light themselves.
- earthtolazlo 10y ago
  You sound like a joy to interact with.
thomaskcr 10y ago
> Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations about our climate, I think the conclusion it's changing and humans are causing it is pretty well supported by that. Past there, we're basing policy decisions on modeling (so 1 level removed from observation) and then predicting the effects of those changes on the environment (2 levels removed from observation). So policy decisions based on projected effects in modeled changes to those parameters are pretty far removed from the actual "97% of scientists agree with this conclusion" part of the field. I live in an affluent area with a good job in a pretty future proof field - it's really easy for me to say "well, who cares if we make the world a better place for no reason". These policy decisions affect a lot of people in negative ways though - to pretend they don't have a valid reason to oppose those changes, and that those policies are based on bullet proof science (especially with the past of climate modeling) is just as anti-science to me as the people who deny the climate is changing. It indicates that a person doesn't understand confidence levels or how errors propagate through layers (especially in an non-linear system) or the difference between an observation, a forecast model and a projection.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.

by awjr 10y ago

melling 10y ago

There's a large amount of effort put into denying climate change. There's even a movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=52Mx0_8YEtg Kilimanjaro isn't losing snow because of global warming but because of deforestation, which I believe is true. https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go https://youtu.be/6hFxG-8I0Go http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanjaro-idUSTRE5B72AQ20091208 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-tanzania-kilimanja...

arethuza 10y ago
That article suggests that both global warming and deforestation are factors in the loss of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro: "forests that have disappeared in the past 30 to 40 years on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes -- cut down by villagers for charcoal and open farmland -- were just as much to blame as rising temperatures worldwide" Anyway this would probably only be a big deal if Kilimanjaro was the only mountain worldwide where glaciers are reducing in size - people only appear to be picking on it because it appeared in "An Inconvenient Truth" and imagining that if that one argument is wrong then the whole edifice of global warming collapses. Which really isn't how science works.

7952 10y ago

I think social pressure plays an important role. People are more likely to protect the environment if that is common behaviour in their locality and social group. Policy like this is often more reactive to changing attitudes rather than being just a stick. I would love to see some data on social attitudes towards the environment. Are people starting to dislike big dirty cars?

nabla9 10y ago

Climate skepticism is Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. Political lobbying seems to be big part of the phenomenon. Poles Apart - The international reporting of climate scepticism http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-apart http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-... >It concludes that climate scepticism is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, found most frequently in the US and British newspapers, and explores the reasons why this is so.

therpe1 10y ago
Indeed. I think this is the key idea. The rest of the world does not have this aversion to science and I've noticed in France (until very, very recently) "climate skepticism" was rightly understood to be an oxymoron by everybody. There's something unique to the US and the UK[1] that really empowers this kind of "skepticism." People on Hacker News speak seriously of the "debate" but, really, they're actually talking about a very local media phenomenon. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015...
ajmurmann 10y ago
Thank you for posting this. A international comparison was what I was hoping to see when I clicked on this article.

creaghpatr 10y ago

I rest easy knowing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have burned far more fossil fuels than I ever will in my entire life. When someone throws the 'denier' slur around, I throw a giant steak on my Big Green Egg, grass-fed for extra environmental impact. Edit: I just got off the set of a major motion picture and I've seen firsthand the incredible waste that goes into making movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" which isn't even a huge production. Don't even get me started on Leo's movies, those soundstages didn't light themselves.

earthtolazlo 10y ago
You sound like a joy to interact with.

thomaskcr 10y ago

> Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations about our climate, I think the conclusion it's changing and humans are causing it is pretty well supported by that. Past there, we're basing policy decisions on modeling (so 1 level removed from observation) and then predicting the effects of those changes on the environment (2 levels removed from observation). So policy decisions based on projected effects in modeled changes to those parameters are pretty far removed from the actual "97% of scientists agree with this conclusion" part of the field. I live in an affluent area with a good job in a pretty future proof field - it's really easy for me to say "well, who cares if we make the world a better place for no reason". These policy decisions affect a lot of people in negative ways though - to pretend they don't have a valid reason to oppose those changes, and that those policies are based on bullet proof science (especially with the past of climate modeling) is just as anti-science to me as the people who deny the climate is changing. It indicates that a person doesn't understand confidence levels or how errors propagate through layers (especially in an non-linear system) or the difference between an observation, a forecast model and a projection.

exclusiv 10y ago
Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.