4 ms·

"We're all in some form of climate denial right now" It should also be acknowledged - perhaps first and foremost - that we are also all in a very real form of

"We're all in some form of climate denial right now" It should also be acknowledged - perhaps first and foremost - that we are also all in a very real form of climate ignorance. Being "realistic" about the impact of climate change requires believing our best science as it stands today, but also understanding that the science is incomplete and certainly wrong in various large and small ways.

raziel2701 6y ago
By far the biggest problem is that we do not agree with a common reality. If the conversation stops at "I don't believe this thing is real" then naive ignorance is the lesser problem. Climate denial is a bigger threat, it relies on moving the goal posts of what constitutes proof it's real, and in the decades it takes to "convince" these people it's real it will be too late to do much about it. Simply put, if climate denial leads to inaction, then that's the bigger problem. Also, climate change is an existential threat, the degree and vigor we use to respond to it should definitely be strong. Debating over which models are more accurate or not is mostly a waste of time. "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" https://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13 https://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13
- lopmotr 6y ago
  Climate change is not an existential threat.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - raziel2701 6y ago
    You live in a different reality, just as I said.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo and do nothing until we have certainty. In practice, we've already begun an experiment in mass-scale terraforming of our environment by emitting vast amounts of CO2. Since we don't know exactly what this will do, but every indication is that the outcome will be catastrophic, we should be working as hard as possible to halt our emissions now. Once we've done that, we can wait for certainty.
- standardUser 6y ago
  "This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo..." And that is generally trotted out as an argument that we should ignore the facts. If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue, we should be striving to change that bias, not surrender to it. Otherwise we veer towards dogmatic interpretations that inevitably become false or contradictory, which I would argue is ultimately a larger deterrent to swaying hearts and minds.
  - dlp211 6y ago
    > If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understanding of an issue can not be realized until the issue is fully actualized. In other words, if we wait for the global atmospheric temp to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius to ensure our accuracy, it is far too late to do anything about it. Uncertainty exists, yes, but that uncertainty is mostly in timescales and consequences of environmental outcomes, not the environmental outcomes themselves.
    - standardUser 6y ago
      I'm reacting to a certain perspective that seems to be dominant when it comes to climate change discourse, wherein its common to take the most severe/pessimistic interpretation of the science and then categorize any less severe interpretations as insufficient. I think that's a poor approach and only serves to alienate people who may be looking for something a little more even-handed or closely aligned with the trends in the science (as opposed to clinging to the extremes). Having said that, I think that even the most optimistic interpretations of climate change are compelling enough to warrant immediate and dramatic action. But we should all strive for the most accurate interpretations of the science, which means being flexible and not dogmatic.

raziel2701 6y ago

By far the biggest problem is that we do not agree with a common reality. If the conversation stops at "I don't believe this thing is real" then naive ignorance is the lesser problem. Climate denial is a bigger threat, it relies on moving the goal posts of what constitutes proof it's real, and in the decades it takes to "convince" these people it's real it will be too late to do much about it. Simply put, if climate denial leads to inaction, then that's the bigger problem. Also, climate change is an existential threat, the degree and vigor we use to respond to it should definitely be strong. Debating over which models are more accurate or not is mostly a waste of time. "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" https://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13 https://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13

lopmotr 6y ago
Climate change is not an existential threat.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- raziel2701 6y ago
  You live in a different reality, just as I said.

matthewdgreen 6y ago

This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo and do nothing until we have certainty. In practice, we've already begun an experiment in mass-scale terraforming of our environment by emitting vast amounts of CO2. Since we don't know exactly what this will do, but every indication is that the outcome will be catastrophic, we should be working as hard as possible to halt our emissions now. Once we've done that, we can wait for certainty.

standardUser 6y ago
"This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo..." And that is generally trotted out as an argument that we should ignore the facts. If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue, we should be striving to change that bias, not surrender to it. Otherwise we veer towards dogmatic interpretations that inevitably become false or contradictory, which I would argue is ultimately a larger deterrent to swaying hearts and minds.
- dlp211 6y ago
  > If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understanding of an issue can not be realized until the issue is fully actualized. In other words, if we wait for the global atmospheric temp to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius to ensure our accuracy, it is far too late to do anything about it. Uncertainty exists, yes, but that uncertainty is mostly in timescales and consequences of environmental outcomes, not the environmental outcomes themselves.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    I'm reacting to a certain perspective that seems to be dominant when it comes to climate change discourse, wherein its common to take the most severe/pessimistic interpretation of the science and then categorize any less severe interpretations as insufficient. I think that's a poor approach and only serves to alienate people who may be looking for something a little more even-handed or closely aligned with the trends in the science (as opposed to clinging to the extremes). Having said that, I think that even the most optimistic interpretations of climate change are compelling enough to warrant immediate and dramatic action. But we should all strive for the most accurate interpretations of the science, which means being flexible and not dogmatic.