7 ms·

I was talking about climate change with a co-worker on Monday. He still doesn't "believe" in it. "Nobody can know if it's happening" and "earth went through co

by y4mi 7y ago

I was talking about climate change with a co-worker on Monday. He still doesn't "believe" in it. "Nobody can know if it's happening" and "earth went through countless high and low temperature passes over the years. It's nothing special" It was a great example of today's reality we live in. It's truly an age of misinformation.

arm64future 7y ago
>He still doesn't "believe" in it. Here's a clue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
- mempko 7y ago
  It's called a forecast. So what if they are off by only 10 years? Does it matter? Because it's certainly going to be ice-free way before 2100. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i... This year is looking like it will set the record for lowest yet. My guess is that it will be ice-free in September within 5 years because it's an exponential decay. Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers. Agreed by who? You're trying to convince the deniers; giving them a massive out like that isn't tactically sound. "Oh their prediction was wrong so they changed the terms - climate change is a conspiracy and they're lying to our faces, can't you see?!?!"
    - mempko 7y ago
      Deniers have already switched from "It's not happening" to "It's happening but not man made". I'm seeing some already switch to "It's is man made, but it's a good thing! look, the world is getting greener!". I was going to say "It's an endless fight", but it isn't true. The fight will end when we all die. The horrors that are coming are unspeakable. During the famines in Russia during the civil-war starving mothers ate their children. Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Things are already starting to get bad and we aren't at 1.5C, or 2C, or the 3-4C we are projected to hit by end of the century.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Funnily enough, I think this would actually be justified if climate change was going to cause imminent famine as you're suggesting. Given the choice between having the population of the US undergo a mild famine while to the south there's a famine beyond living memory (thanks to preventing climate-motivated migration) or having a famine beyond living memory here (thanks to the extra few hundred million mouths to feed), I know which one I would want the US government to choose. Helping refugees is a good thing, but the US government has an obligation to US citizens first and foremost. That's why we call it the United States government, and not the Mexican government, or Guatemalan government, or Honduran... If you let too many people get into the lifeboat, you all drown. I don't think that this is currently the case, though. Famine, when it comes, will affect the rest of the world far more than it will the US, Canada, and Russia. Food will become more expensive, but that will be due to exports rather than having more people than the land can feed - unlike almost every other country on the planet. Also barring further improvements in agriculture, of course.
        mempko 7y ago
        > Famine, when it comes, will affect the rest of the world far more than it will the US, Canada, and Russia. USA has had the biggest impact on climate in the last 100 years and is responsible for the bulk of climate emissions. In other words, the rest of the world will starve because of us and somehow we can justify building walls to protect ourselves. If there is a thing as "evil" it most certainly is that.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        > In other words, the rest of the world will starve because of us I think that when it comes to total impact on the ability of the rest of the world to feed itself, the US is probably pretty far in the black. Yes the contribution to climate change is negative, but the Green Revolution [0] is almost certainly very, very positive. Improved agricultural tech, including GMO crops, have fed a lot of people around the world. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
mindslight 7y ago
What is the personal benefit to believing in climate change? Now you get to feel bad about doing all the things you're going to do anyway? If you're going to go cognitive dissonance, you might as well go all-in. Lifestyle choices won't affect climate change as long as we keep fueling the machine that's chewing through the resources. "It's the economy, stupid" - the modern economy doesn't just depend on consuming many resources as possible, its tenets are fundamentally based around it. Every call for more jobs is a call for more waste. Every push to lower interest rates is a judgment of valuing the present over the future. We've figured out how to make more stuff than we can actually ever use - now we need to figure out how to dial it back instead of throwing the excess away.
- mempko 7y ago
  It's important because it frames what is happening now in a proper context. For example, in the USA, we are caging climate refugees, many children, in concentration camps. The media doesn't call them climate refugees, but that's what they are. If you understand this, then you understand the problem of people wanting to come is only going to get worse, and it's a moral imperative we let them come. It's also important to you because it can help you decide where to work, where to live, and what to do.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Without a sense of action, that "proper context" just causes more mental anguish. I'm obviously writing from a place of accepting climate change - I'm just describing why denying it is so attractive. Lifestyle choices are intrinsically a social game - your ignorant climate change denier is likely very concerned about some different issue, and can't understand why you're ignoring it. There are so many problems, it's impossible to care about them all. Meanwhile the media encourages both ignorances, pitting them against one another to insulate the status quo.
    - mempko 7y ago
      I don't think denial is apathy or a response to dealing with other problems. Denial is a product of a massive disinformation campaign. There is a reason the rest of the world (in places with worse problems than in USA) doesn't have the same level of denial.
criddell 7y ago
Does he believe smoking causes lung cancer? Edit: This is what I was trying to remember: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-...
deanstag 7y ago
Whats the rational response to that? I keep getting into these discussions but I myself am not versed enough to counter it :(
Brakenshire 7y ago
Unfortunately you repeat anything enough times and people will pick up on it, even if it goes against what is self-evident. Even something you can explain in 5 minutes like the connection between the concentration of greenhouses gases and warming. It’s probably quite a good lesson for everyone, a lot of our beliefs aren’t reached through some process from first principles, they are accepted from what appears to be normal. Our understanding of the world is really not much better than the sources for news and analysis we and those around us expose ourselves to.
gibbonsrcool 7y ago
I've gotten similar responses arguing with climate crisis deniers. I think a reasonable retort is: how do you know there were countless high and low temperature phases? If you listened to overwhelming science for climate history why don't you agree with equally overwhelming science that we are the cause of the climate crisis?
lordnacho 7y ago
It's a funny kind of fooled by randomness, the argument that there is variation, so it wasn't caused by a specific effect. Suppose Iceland were to win the World Cup. Would people be saying that Iceland had spent a bunch of effort training players, or would they be saying that it's natural for different teams to win, and that it had to happen eventually? One major issue is that probability and statistics are very far down the pecking order of what is considered part of a good education. A huge number of people think "it varies randomly" means the same as "there's no way to know any more".
- user5994461 7y ago
  >>> Suppose Iceland were to win the World Cup. Would people be saying that Iceland had spent a bunch of effort training players, or would they be saying that it's natural for different teams to win, and that it had to happen eventually? People would be saying both and they would all be right. It takes both luck and training to win.
wolco 7y ago
There is a growing number of people who were on board in 2007 but now are expressing doubts. I think support ebbs and flows depending on the weather/what movies are popular.
binarnosp 7y ago
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway explains how the misinformation about climate change (and other topics) unfolded.

by y4mi 7y ago

arm64future 7y ago

>He still doesn't "believe" in it. Here's a clue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

mempko 7y ago
It's called a forecast. So what if they are off by only 10 years? Does it matter? Because it's certainly going to be ice-free way before 2100. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i... This year is looking like it will set the record for lowest yet. My guess is that it will be ice-free in September within 5 years because it's an exponential decay. Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers. Agreed by who? You're trying to convince the deniers; giving them a massive out like that isn't tactically sound. "Oh their prediction was wrong so they changed the terms - climate change is a conspiracy and they're lying to our faces, can't you see?!?!"
  - mempko 7y ago
    Deniers have already switched from "It's not happening" to "It's happening but not man made". I'm seeing some already switch to "It's is man made, but it's a good thing! look, the world is getting greener!". I was going to say "It's an endless fight", but it isn't true. The fight will end when we all die. The horrors that are coming are unspeakable. During the famines in Russia during the civil-war starving mothers ate their children. Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Things are already starting to get bad and we aren't at 1.5C, or 2C, or the 3-4C we are projected to hit by end of the century.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Funnily enough, I think this would actually be justified if climate change was going to cause imminent famine as you're suggesting. Given the choice between having the population of the US undergo a mild famine while to the south there's a famine beyond living memory (thanks to preventing climate-motivated migration) or having a famine beyond living memory here (thanks to the extra few hundred million mouths to feed), I know which one I would want the US government to choose. Helping refugees is a good thing, but the US government has an obligation to US citizens first and foremost. That's why we call it the United States government, and not the Mexican government, or Guatemalan government, or Honduran... If you let too many people get into the lifeboat, you all drown. I don't think that this is currently the case, though. Famine, when it comes, will affect the rest of the world far more than it will the US, Canada, and Russia. Food will become more expensive, but that will be due to exports rather than having more people than the land can feed - unlike almost every other country on the planet. Also barring further improvements in agriculture, of course.
      - mempko 7y ago
        > Famine, when it comes, will affect the rest of the world far more than it will the US, Canada, and Russia. USA has had the biggest impact on climate in the last 100 years and is responsible for the bulk of climate emissions. In other words, the rest of the world will starve because of us and somehow we can justify building walls to protect ourselves. If there is a thing as "evil" it most certainly is that.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        > In other words, the rest of the world will starve because of us I think that when it comes to total impact on the ability of the rest of the world to feed itself, the US is probably pretty far in the black. Yes the contribution to climate change is negative, but the Green Revolution [0] is almost certainly very, very positive. Improved agricultural tech, including GMO crops, have fed a lot of people around the world. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

mindslight 7y ago

What is the personal benefit to believing in climate change? Now you get to feel bad about doing all the things you're going to do anyway? If you're going to go cognitive dissonance, you might as well go all-in. Lifestyle choices won't affect climate change as long as we keep fueling the machine that's chewing through the resources. "It's the economy, stupid" - the modern economy doesn't just depend on consuming many resources as possible, its tenets are fundamentally based around it. Every call for more jobs is a call for more waste. Every push to lower interest rates is a judgment of valuing the present over the future. We've figured out how to make more stuff than we can actually ever use - now we need to figure out how to dial it back instead of throwing the excess away.

mempko 7y ago
It's important because it frames what is happening now in a proper context. For example, in the USA, we are caging climate refugees, many children, in concentration camps. The media doesn't call them climate refugees, but that's what they are. If you understand this, then you understand the problem of people wanting to come is only going to get worse, and it's a moral imperative we let them come. It's also important to you because it can help you decide where to work, where to live, and what to do.
- mindslight 7y ago
  Without a sense of action, that "proper context" just causes more mental anguish. I'm obviously writing from a place of accepting climate change - I'm just describing why denying it is so attractive. Lifestyle choices are intrinsically a social game - your ignorant climate change denier is likely very concerned about some different issue, and can't understand why you're ignoring it. There are so many problems, it's impossible to care about them all. Meanwhile the media encourages both ignorances, pitting them against one another to insulate the status quo.
  - mempko 7y ago
    I don't think denial is apathy or a response to dealing with other problems. Denial is a product of a massive disinformation campaign. There is a reason the rest of the world (in places with worse problems than in USA) doesn't have the same level of denial.

criddell 7y ago

Does he believe smoking causes lung cancer? Edit: This is what I was trying to remember: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-...

deanstag 7y ago

Whats the rational response to that? I keep getting into these discussions but I myself am not versed enough to counter it :(

Brakenshire 7y ago

Unfortunately you repeat anything enough times and people will pick up on it, even if it goes against what is self-evident. Even something you can explain in 5 minutes like the connection between the concentration of greenhouses gases and warming. It’s probably quite a good lesson for everyone, a lot of our beliefs aren’t reached through some process from first principles, they are accepted from what appears to be normal. Our understanding of the world is really not much better than the sources for news and analysis we and those around us expose ourselves to.

gibbonsrcool 7y ago

I've gotten similar responses arguing with climate crisis deniers. I think a reasonable retort is: how do you know there were countless high and low temperature phases? If you listened to overwhelming science for climate history why don't you agree with equally overwhelming science that we are the cause of the climate crisis?

lordnacho 7y ago

It's a funny kind of fooled by randomness, the argument that there is variation, so it wasn't caused by a specific effect. Suppose Iceland were to win the World Cup. Would people be saying that Iceland had spent a bunch of effort training players, or would they be saying that it's natural for different teams to win, and that it had to happen eventually? One major issue is that probability and statistics are very far down the pecking order of what is considered part of a good education. A huge number of people think "it varies randomly" means the same as "there's no way to know any more".

user5994461 7y ago
>>> Suppose Iceland were to win the World Cup. Would people be saying that Iceland had spent a bunch of effort training players, or would they be saying that it's natural for different teams to win, and that it had to happen eventually? People would be saying both and they would all be right. It takes both luck and training to win.

wolco 7y ago

There is a growing number of people who were on board in 2007 but now are expressing doubts. I think support ebbs and flows depending on the weather/what movies are popular.

binarnosp 7y ago

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway explains how the misinformation about climate change (and other topics) unfolded.