3 ms·

I think most educated people now days are aware that the earth is "getting hotter". Articles like this seem to just monger fear and not really encourage steps

I think most educated people now days are aware that the earth is "getting hotter". Articles like this seem to just monger fear and not really encourage steps we can take to continue improving the environment and adapting renewable and reasonable sources of energy like nuclear.

ahoy 7y ago
There are an awful lot of educated people whose livelihoods depends on us not taking those steps. That's why disinformation and denialist propaganda like this study get funded. Leaving those lies unchallenged would be journalistic malpractice.
- algaeontoast 7y ago
  It still boils my blood that there are wealthy families in New York (politics and religion aside) who actively fund anti-vaccination rhetoric and associations who make issues of vaccination religious...
  - ahoy 7y ago
    As it should. My point is that there are also wealthy families(and companies) in NY/Houston/DC/etc that know that climate change will cause wide-scale human suffering but purposefully spread misinformation and sow doubt because addressing that problem would cut into their wealth.
perfunctory 7y ago
> and not really encourage steps What do you think would be a more efficient way to encourage those steps?
chiefalchemist 7y ago
There are a small percentage of flat out deniers. They are fringe. Their numbers overestimated. On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a major contributing factor." Given what we know about the planet's history it's foolish to consider these ppl deniers. They believe. It's the cause they don't agree with. This is becoming a classic case of too many people being worried about the wrong problem. Deniers aren't the issue. It's the "it ain't because of humans" cluster.
- acdha 7y ago
  > On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a major contributing factor." I think that group is much smaller than the group of people who don't want to make significant lifestyle changes and are hoping that things won't get bad until after they're dead. Unfortunately there isn't a good way to break that cycle without confronting the problem — just as is the case for anything else where the feedback is substantially delayed. The thing which will probably move the needle on climate change will be insurance skyrocketing or disappearing and governments choosing not to rebuild in high-risk areas, because that will make the risk real enough not to downplay.
- coffeecat 7y ago
  I don't think the difference between those two groups is particularly significant. Both groups unapologetically ignore an area of well-established science. Both groups are philosophically equivalent (humans can keep burning fossil fuels with no adverse effects), both are influenced by the same (or functionally equivalent) propaganda, and both will oppose policy solutions. One group ignores a bit more science than the other, and arguably, might make worse real estate purchasing decisions.

ahoy 7y ago

There are an awful lot of educated people whose livelihoods depends on us not taking those steps. That's why disinformation and denialist propaganda like this study get funded. Leaving those lies unchallenged would be journalistic malpractice.

algaeontoast 7y ago
It still boils my blood that there are wealthy families in New York (politics and religion aside) who actively fund anti-vaccination rhetoric and associations who make issues of vaccination religious...
- ahoy 7y ago
  As it should. My point is that there are also wealthy families(and companies) in NY/Houston/DC/etc that know that climate change will cause wide-scale human suffering but purposefully spread misinformation and sow doubt because addressing that problem would cut into their wealth.

perfunctory 7y ago

> and not really encourage steps What do you think would be a more efficient way to encourage those steps?

chiefalchemist 7y ago

There are a small percentage of flat out deniers. They are fringe. Their numbers overestimated. On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a major contributing factor." Given what we know about the planet's history it's foolish to consider these ppl deniers. They believe. It's the cause they don't agree with. This is becoming a classic case of too many people being worried about the wrong problem. Deniers aren't the issue. It's the "it ain't because of humans" cluster.

acdha 7y ago
> On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a major contributing factor." I think that group is much smaller than the group of people who don't want to make significant lifestyle changes and are hoping that things won't get bad until after they're dead. Unfortunately there isn't a good way to break that cycle without confronting the problem — just as is the case for anything else where the feedback is substantially delayed. The thing which will probably move the needle on climate change will be insurance skyrocketing or disappearing and governments choosing not to rebuild in high-risk areas, because that will make the risk real enough not to downplay.
coffeecat 7y ago
I don't think the difference between those two groups is particularly significant. Both groups unapologetically ignore an area of well-established science. Both groups are philosophically equivalent (humans can keep burning fossil fuels with no adverse effects), both are influenced by the same (or functionally equivalent) propaganda, and both will oppose policy solutions. One group ignores a bit more science than the other, and arguably, might make worse real estate purchasing decisions.