4 ms·

That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a m

by ErrantX 16y ago

That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a meaningful discussion without yelling words like that :) There is this theory, I fear, that it tries to imply the gravity of the situation... all of which is pointless. Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated aims. To extend your theatre analogy. Shouting "fire" in a theatre during the first half when it looks relatively likely a fire will start in the second half is definitely counter-productive. :) My point is; this is entirely the wrong, unethical, political and hysterical way to present important science and raise the issues. Do it right, or not at all IMO.

gjm11 16y ago
I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is. What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)

by ErrantX 16y ago

gjm11 16y ago

I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is. What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)