4 ms·

Shut Up, Franzen

15 points by jmsflknr 7y ago

chmaynard 7y ago
Serious scientists don't write headlines like this. Whatever her objective was in writing this opinion piece, she shot herself in the foot. Franzen's essay in The New Yorker is profound and extremely well-written. It deserves a better response than this diatribe.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  Franzen's essay was garbage. There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world (e.g. Michael Mann who was asked to fact check a specific accounting of climate modeling, who was then ignored for the more pessimistic framing that Franzen preferred[1]). Tone policing the n+1th article to correct blatant misinformation isn't super useful. [1] - https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440 https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440
  - crispinb 7y ago
    > There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world None of whom have a clue how to make the word 'choice' meaningful for billions of people, armed to the teeth, relentlessly propagandised for over a century as to the merits of unhindered consumption. The science of climate change is entirely irrelevant to this, so these are not in this context 'experts'. > Franzen's essay was garbage. Perhaps, but his conclusion is hard to argue with. The apocalypse is coming, for anyone other than fantasists. There isn't a single remotely plausible political route from where we are to a healthy living planet. Not one.
    - GoodJokes 7y ago
      I am pretty sure slaves thought there was no political route to emancipation. When did we lose our collective imaginations of what is possible?
  - mistersquid 7y ago
    Mann's correction is not very helpful to Franzen's political agenda which is to motivate people by inducing fear. Mann states (on Twitter) > Even after Franzen was informed of his error by the fact-checker, he still ended up skewing the notion of uncertainty, implying the model averages preferentially underestimate likely warming, when I had clearly indicated there's an equal likelihood of under and over-estimation. [0] which suggests Franzen took the side of the "equal likelihood" and skewed it in the direction he preferred. What Mann wants is an accurate scientific representation of the model's accuracy whereas Franzen wants to emphasize the potentially disastrous consequences of a model that underestimates the severity of warming. Mann is scientifically correct but Franzen is after something more crucial which is convincing people to act. Kate Marvel seems to read Franzen's article as fatalist (or at least encouraging readers to adopt a fatalist position). I personally read Franzen as trying to motivate people to act in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger and, in my opinion, I think Franzen's approach is more likely to produce action than Marvel's. [0] https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570 https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Franzen's essay was garbage. There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world Rebuttals are a dime a dozen, especially on hot topics...
B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
I find it interesting the most of the rhetoric could have been lifted from a XIII century religious tract.
mark-r 7y ago
I don't get any text on the page, just the picture at the top. What am I doing wrong? Edit: that was in Chrome, works fine in Firefox.
crispinb 7y ago
I'd say "shut up, climate scientists". Not on the science, but on this simple-minded superstitious view of political 'choice' (which, incidentally, completely ignores all science related to choice, human cognitive development, etc). WTF does 'choice' mean for 7 billion people organised into a bunch of mutually-hostile nations? Not one person in the world has a clue how to herd the global mob of semi-conscious apes. 30 years of failure amply demonstrate this.
coldtea 7y ago
>We are, I promise you, not doomed, no matter what Jonathan Franzen says. We could be, of course, if we decided we really wanted to. Well, we knew about these things for 3+ decades, so how does that "decision" thing working out thus far?
GoodJokes 7y ago
It’s amazing that a supposed technical crowd is so hostile towards technical analysis on this front. I actually DON’T THINK most of us know much about climate science past headlines we see. Franzen is a lazy fatalist and people are calling him out. Totally warranted.

15 points by jmsflknr 7y ago

Serious scientists don't write headlines like this. Whatever her objective was in writing this opinion piece, she shot herself in the foot. Franzen's essay in The New Yorker is profound and extremely well-written. It deserves a better response than this diatribe.

mikeyouse 7y ago
Franzen's essay was garbage. There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world (e.g. Michael Mann who was asked to fact check a specific accounting of climate modeling, who was then ignored for the more pessimistic framing that Franzen preferred[1]). Tone policing the n+1th article to correct blatant misinformation isn't super useful. [1] - https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440 https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1170847152060477440
- crispinb 7y ago
  > There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world None of whom have a clue how to make the word 'choice' meaningful for billions of people, armed to the teeth, relentlessly propagandised for over a century as to the merits of unhindered consumption. The science of climate change is entirely irrelevant to this, so these are not in this context 'experts'. > Franzen's essay was garbage. Perhaps, but his conclusion is hard to argue with. The apocalypse is coming, for anyone other than fantasists. There isn't a single remotely plausible political route from where we are to a healthy living planet. Not one.
  - GoodJokes 7y ago
    I am pretty sure slaves thought there was no political route to emancipation. When did we lose our collective imaginations of what is possible?
- mistersquid 7y ago
  Mann's correction is not very helpful to Franzen's political agenda which is to motivate people by inducing fear. Mann states (on Twitter) > Even after Franzen was informed of his error by the fact-checker, he still ended up skewing the notion of uncertainty, implying the model averages preferentially underestimate likely warming, when I had clearly indicated there's an equal likelihood of under and over-estimation. [0] which suggests Franzen took the side of the "equal likelihood" and skewed it in the direction he preferred. What Mann wants is an accurate scientific representation of the model's accuracy whereas Franzen wants to emphasize the potentially disastrous consequences of a model that underestimates the severity of warming. Mann is scientifically correct but Franzen is after something more crucial which is convincing people to act. Kate Marvel seems to read Franzen's article as fatalist (or at least encouraging readers to adopt a fatalist position). I personally read Franzen as trying to motivate people to act in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger and, in my opinion, I think Franzen's approach is more likely to produce action than Marvel's. [0] https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570 https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Franzen's essay was garbage. There are rebuttals all over the place including from some of the most prominent Climate scientists in the world Rebuttals are a dime a dozen, especially on hot topics...

B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago

I find it interesting the most of the rhetoric could have been lifted from a XIII century religious tract.

mark-r 7y ago

I don't get any text on the page, just the picture at the top. What am I doing wrong? Edit: that was in Chrome, works fine in Firefox.

crispinb 7y ago

I'd say "shut up, climate scientists". Not on the science, but on this simple-minded superstitious view of political 'choice' (which, incidentally, completely ignores all science related to choice, human cognitive development, etc). WTF does 'choice' mean for 7 billion people organised into a bunch of mutually-hostile nations? Not one person in the world has a clue how to herd the global mob of semi-conscious apes. 30 years of failure amply demonstrate this.

coldtea 7y ago

>We are, I promise you, not doomed, no matter what Jonathan Franzen says. We could be, of course, if we decided we really wanted to. Well, we knew about these things for 3+ decades, so how does that "decision" thing working out thus far?

GoodJokes 7y ago

It’s amazing that a supposed technical crowd is so hostile towards technical analysis on this front. I actually DON’T THINK most of us know much about climate science past headlines we see. Franzen is a lazy fatalist and people are calling him out. Totally warranted.