4 ms·

> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I belie

by getonit 16y ago

> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production. > This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? > Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact. I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. > However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;) > We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement. I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.

ErrantX 16y ago
> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two! > Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill. You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;) > and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas. We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.
- getonit 16y ago
  > This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"? The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system. And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.

by getonit 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two! > Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill. You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;) > and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas. We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.

getonit 16y ago
> This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"? The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system. And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.