4 ms·

Poster child for the child abuse the climate alarmists have wrought upon a generation. Are the lasting psychological effects of instilling so much fear in so ma

by black6 7y ago

Poster child for the child abuse the climate alarmists have wrought upon a generation. Are the lasting psychological effects of instilling so much fear in so many children really worth it? We’re not all going to die on account of climate change—nor will our grandchildren. Endless war in the Middle East and child labor in rare-earth metal mines in Africa are what children should be speaking to the UN about.

0815test 7y ago
I actually agree about the scaremongering coming out of the Thunberg camp, but come on, it's not like she's doing this personally. She's a figurehead for a relatively niche movement that's trying to make it big, and she can surely handle this role. It's not any harder than the things that she did engage with personally in a decision-making role - namely, the initial school protests (that she was entirely right about, btw - the Thunberg/post-millennial generation is entirely disenfranchised wrt. lots of crucial issues not just climate, and they should be very visibly upset about this!)
nickparker 7y ago
Our grandchildren are probably not going to die of climate catastrophe. However, that “probably” is sufficiently weak to justify a huge urgent response. An asteroid with a 3% chance of wiping out hundreds of millions of people in 60 years would motivate us to deflect it. The long tail of climate outcomes is a worse threat than that hypothetical, and we’re doing precious little to prevent it.
atoav 7y ago
You probably know how feedback (both positive and negative) work in systems. If not, it is the same process that makes a microphone scream if you are too close to the speaker. Often the area between no feedback and full on feedback is really tiny. Climate is similar – with the tipping point according to current models around +1.5°C average temperature. That means if we manag to limit it to <1.5°C we won't enter a region where climate warming accelerates itself to a degree that makes it unstoppable. And there is literally no debate about these mechanisms – there is a >97% consensus on this. Of course we can do the silly thing and try out what happens, ruin our own existential basis, get the predicted migrant waves, conflicts, economic damages etc. Or we could do what a civilized society would do and act accordingly.
- 0815test 7y ago
  The amount of "feedback" involved in climate systems is the very thing that makes them incredibly hard to predict and make solid claims about. The claim that there is "consensus" that a runaway process will happen if warming hits 1.5C, and that no other, countering feedbacks exist that could mitigate this effect, is kinda preposterous given the inherent complexity of what we're dealing with. Even something as simple as cloud cover, and how it would respond to a "warmer" planet, is stuff that there's a lot of uncertainty about.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I think our collective effort to advance our climate knowledge by testing these hypotheses, despite the existential risks, shows an admirable commitment to science.
- stareatgoats 7y ago
  > if we manag to limit it to <1.5°C we won't enter a region where climate warming accelerates itself to a degree that makes it unstoppable. Grateful if you could point to a source that shows a >97% consensus on that statement. Genuinely interested, not trolling. Thanks.

by black6 7y ago

0815test 7y ago

I actually agree about the scaremongering coming out of the Thunberg camp, but come on, it's not like she's doing this personally. She's a figurehead for a relatively niche movement that's trying to make it big, and she can surely handle this role. It's not any harder than the things that she did engage with personally in a decision-making role - namely, the initial school protests (that she was entirely right about, btw - the Thunberg/post-millennial generation is entirely disenfranchised wrt. lots of crucial issues not just climate, and they should be very visibly upset about this!)

nickparker 7y ago

Our grandchildren are probably not going to die of climate catastrophe. However, that “probably” is sufficiently weak to justify a huge urgent response. An asteroid with a 3% chance of wiping out hundreds of millions of people in 60 years would motivate us to deflect it. The long tail of climate outcomes is a worse threat than that hypothetical, and we’re doing precious little to prevent it.

atoav 7y ago

You probably know how feedback (both positive and negative) work in systems. If not, it is the same process that makes a microphone scream if you are too close to the speaker. Often the area between no feedback and full on feedback is really tiny. Climate is similar – with the tipping point according to current models around +1.5°C average temperature. That means if we manag to limit it to <1.5°C we won't enter a region where climate warming accelerates itself to a degree that makes it unstoppable. And there is literally no debate about these mechanisms – there is a >97% consensus on this. Of course we can do the silly thing and try out what happens, ruin our own existential basis, get the predicted migrant waves, conflicts, economic damages etc. Or we could do what a civilized society would do and act accordingly.

0815test 7y ago
The amount of "feedback" involved in climate systems is the very thing that makes them incredibly hard to predict and make solid claims about. The claim that there is "consensus" that a runaway process will happen if warming hits 1.5C, and that no other, countering feedbacks exist that could mitigate this effect, is kinda preposterous given the inherent complexity of what we're dealing with. Even something as simple as cloud cover, and how it would respond to a "warmer" planet, is stuff that there's a lot of uncertainty about.
- deogeo 7y ago
  I think our collective effort to advance our climate knowledge by testing these hypotheses, despite the existential risks, shows an admirable commitment to science.
stareatgoats 7y ago
> if we manag to limit it to <1.5°C we won't enter a region where climate warming accelerates itself to a degree that makes it unstoppable. Grateful if you could point to a source that shows a >97% consensus on that statement. Genuinely interested, not trolling. Thanks.