4 ms·

I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering

by oezi 5y ago

I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering a technological breakthrough to save us. I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself. It is as if mathematicians would see a barrage of comments telling them their proofs are obviously wrong. > ie, Campaign for nuclear power. Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends. Nuclear has no chance to compete with today's renewables which are on aggressive downward trajectories in price and aren't restricted by long planning cycles. The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption, a reduction in home size, a reduction in travel.

rajin444 5y ago
> I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering a technological breakthrough to save us. You have about as much ground as the parent to state this. You’re making an appeal to authority. > I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself. I agree. The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. That should not be happening as well, but it is, so the parents post is warranted. Science is done by humans who are biased. 99% of people cannnot argue with scientists from first principles, so they’re left with trust which is sorely lacking. They naturally start to investigate on their own. What else can they do?
- oezi 5y ago
  > You’re making an appeal to authority Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argument cannot be much compressed than what is tomes of scientific literature. So you need to build trust in authorities and just believe them. This is better than believing your or soembody else's train of thought in an online discussion. > What else can they do? No, why do you need to investigate on your own? Nobody does that, and they shouldn't. Heck most people would have a hard time finding the federal code which says that you have to stop at a stop sign. The good thing is that you don't need to because it says Stop and people you trust such as a driving instructor told you. > The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. No, the article is giving statements by scientists that are meant to be approachable to lay-people. There isn't anything bad with that. In particular, the OPs point that a statement such as "maybe the worst drought since 1200 years" (which might as well be) is doing a disservice to fighting climate change, is troubling. It is as if the firefighters are telling you to get out of your house because it is burning, but you are staying because they used bad grammar in their request to you.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    I think the fundamental issue is that you trust these institutions but many others don’t. Your statements make sense if that trust is present. I was trying to show how the actions you’re confused by are rational given a lack of trust. Whether or not the lack of trust is justified is a different debate.
orangecat 5y ago
So on our current trajectory we're doomed, and also there's no point to nuclear because wind and solar will be cheap and abundant in a few years. I'm having a hard time seeing how these claims are mutually consistent. The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption There it is. As usual, I'm getting the same vibe as from religious conservatives who oppose birth control and STD vaccines because they allow us to continue our sinful lifestyles.

by oezi 5y ago

rajin444 5y ago

> I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering a technological breakthrough to save us. You have about as much ground as the parent to state this. You’re making an appeal to authority. > I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself. I agree. The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. That should not be happening as well, but it is, so the parents post is warranted. Science is done by humans who are biased. 99% of people cannnot argue with scientists from first principles, so they’re left with trust which is sorely lacking. They naturally start to investigate on their own. What else can they do?

oezi 5y ago
> You’re making an appeal to authority Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argument cannot be much compressed than what is tomes of scientific literature. So you need to build trust in authorities and just believe them. This is better than believing your or soembody else's train of thought in an online discussion. > What else can they do? No, why do you need to investigate on your own? Nobody does that, and they shouldn't. Heck most people would have a hard time finding the federal code which says that you have to stop at a stop sign. The good thing is that you don't need to because it says Stop and people you trust such as a driving instructor told you. > The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. No, the article is giving statements by scientists that are meant to be approachable to lay-people. There isn't anything bad with that. In particular, the OPs point that a statement such as "maybe the worst drought since 1200 years" (which might as well be) is doing a disservice to fighting climate change, is troubling. It is as if the firefighters are telling you to get out of your house because it is burning, but you are staying because they used bad grammar in their request to you.
- rajin444 5y ago
  I think the fundamental issue is that you trust these institutions but many others don’t. Your statements make sense if that trust is present. I was trying to show how the actions you’re confused by are rational given a lack of trust. Whether or not the lack of trust is justified is a different debate.

orangecat 5y ago

So on our current trajectory we're doomed, and also there's no point to nuclear because wind and solar will be cheap and abundant in a few years. I'm having a hard time seeing how these claims are mutually consistent. The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption There it is. As usual, I'm getting the same vibe as from religious conservatives who oppose birth control and STD vaccines because they allow us to continue our sinful lifestyles.