3 ms·

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to deny anthopogenic climate change at this point. The data is abundant and reliable, we can see the effects with

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to deny anthopogenic climate change at this point. The data is abundant and reliable, we can see the effects with our own eyes (how many "once in a century" weather events have we been having in the past decade?) and the evidence against anthopogenic climate change comes from organizations that benefit from denying it.

randomopining 6y ago
I think a large chunk are people that know it's true, but think that humans can "out-build it" or "out-engineer it"... reality is that nobody understands how much our natural environment still impacts us. You sit on your chair in a city, working on your dual 4k screens, getting a fresh burrito delivered in 20 mins, and it seems like humans can only get more advanced. But few think about the fragile supply chains that allowed all that to happen.
- minikites 6y ago
  >But few think about the fragile supply chains that allowed all that to happen. I think this is an excellent point. One can draw a clear parallel to the Bronze Age Collapse and there's no reason we couldn't have a modern version today. We've eliminated all of the "slack" in our global systems and organizations in the endless pursuit for profits above all and our systems are now not resilient enough to handle a major problem. Imagine what will happen when our changing climate puts even more of a strain on our systems, both economic (e.g. the subject of the article) and political. Xenophobic nations are not going to get more tolerant when global conditions get worse.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > I think a large chunk are people that know it's true, but think that humans can "out-build it" or "out-engineer it" Yeah, but a lot of those people held the "climate denial" view like 1 decade ago. This is just the natural evolution of the view as it becomes more and more undeniable.
  - randomopining 6y ago
    Yeah good point, exactly. Now that the facts are so obvious, they are forced to say... "Well China isn't following through! And we can adapt anyway!!" which is obviously naive.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
It's partly learned helplessness: mass media likes making claims "act urgently, next year it will be too late" [1]. And now the "next year" is here. It is too late. Done. Just relax and live (the rest of) your life to the fullest. [1] https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-act-now-2650039989.html https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-act-now-2650039989.h...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  In fairness, it was already too late when they were making the claim that "next year (or whenever) will be too late". That is, if you look at the data of the people doing the urging to "act now", the damage was already done by the time they were speaking. There could be a case for saying "It's already going to be awful; act immediately before it's catastrophic" - but they weren't making that case. (Or, perhaps, the media wasn't reporting them as making that case.)
bruiseralmighty 6y ago
Well let's see if I sprain my cerebellum with this one. Why is it there a lack of good research into critiques of anthropogenic climate change and its subsequent ill effects? I would expect some kind of rigorous evaluation on at least the net positive or negative effects of climate change in top climate journals. However, I do not hear about this type of discussion. A lot of the publish science seems to serve only to confirm the consensus. Is this actually a good application of the scientific method or just humans circling the metaphorical may-pole? What is worrying is that established researchers who have pushed back against this narrative have been brought low by their peers despite any good standing they may have had prior. Of course the usual suspects will have their own agenda and money to subsidize it, but why is this the highest quality critique of climate change that exists? I would expect, if we are in fact doing 'science', that the highest qualities critique would come from top researchers who would still be respected in their field even after publishing such critique. The stark lack of dissent may be simply a media narrative around science reporting. However, I have this ignorable itch at the base of my skull that what is being passed off as 'climate science' may in fact be the 'climate-science bureaucracy'; thus I remain skeptical. Hopefully this is not a too disgraceful display of my mental flexibility.

randomopining 6y ago

I think a large chunk are people that know it's true, but think that humans can "out-build it" or "out-engineer it"... reality is that nobody understands how much our natural environment still impacts us. You sit on your chair in a city, working on your dual 4k screens, getting a fresh burrito delivered in 20 mins, and it seems like humans can only get more advanced. But few think about the fragile supply chains that allowed all that to happen.

minikites 6y ago
>But few think about the fragile supply chains that allowed all that to happen. I think this is an excellent point. One can draw a clear parallel to the Bronze Age Collapse and there's no reason we couldn't have a modern version today. We've eliminated all of the "slack" in our global systems and organizations in the endless pursuit for profits above all and our systems are now not resilient enough to handle a major problem. Imagine what will happen when our changing climate puts even more of a strain on our systems, both economic (e.g. the subject of the article) and political. Xenophobic nations are not going to get more tolerant when global conditions get worse.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> I think a large chunk are people that know it's true, but think that humans can "out-build it" or "out-engineer it" Yeah, but a lot of those people held the "climate denial" view like 1 decade ago. This is just the natural evolution of the view as it becomes more and more undeniable.
- randomopining 6y ago
  Yeah good point, exactly. Now that the facts are so obvious, they are forced to say... "Well China isn't following through! And we can adapt anyway!!" which is obviously naive.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

It's partly learned helplessness: mass media likes making claims "act urgently, next year it will be too late" [1]. And now the "next year" is here. It is too late. Done. Just relax and live (the rest of) your life to the fullest. [1] https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-act-now-2650039989.html https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-act-now-2650039989.h...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
In fairness, it was already too late when they were making the claim that "next year (or whenever) will be too late". That is, if you look at the data of the people doing the urging to "act now", the damage was already done by the time they were speaking. There could be a case for saying "It's already going to be awful; act immediately before it's catastrophic" - but they weren't making that case. (Or, perhaps, the media wasn't reporting them as making that case.)

bruiseralmighty 6y ago

Well let's see if I sprain my cerebellum with this one. Why is it there a lack of good research into critiques of anthropogenic climate change and its subsequent ill effects? I would expect some kind of rigorous evaluation on at least the net positive or negative effects of climate change in top climate journals. However, I do not hear about this type of discussion. A lot of the publish science seems to serve only to confirm the consensus. Is this actually a good application of the scientific method or just humans circling the metaphorical may-pole? What is worrying is that established researchers who have pushed back against this narrative have been brought low by their peers despite any good standing they may have had prior. Of course the usual suspects will have their own agenda and money to subsidize it, but why is this the highest quality critique of climate change that exists? I would expect, if we are in fact doing 'science', that the highest qualities critique would come from top researchers who would still be respected in their field even after publishing such critique. The stark lack of dissent may be simply a media narrative around science reporting. However, I have this ignorable itch at the base of my skull that what is being passed off as 'climate science' may in fact be the 'climate-science bureaucracy'; thus I remain skeptical. Hopefully this is not a too disgraceful display of my mental flexibility.