3 ms·

To be frank the science is way less apocalyptic in nature than certain politicians and people tend to be rhetorically speaking. Climate change isn’t going to w

To be frank the science is way less apocalyptic in nature than certain politicians and people tend to be rhetorically speaking. Climate change isn’t going to wipe out humanity or all life on Earth and I’ve never seen a legit paper even come close to suggesting this. Yet I hear it from Joe blow all the time.

imoverclocked 5y ago
While science does tend to keep estimates and language neutral to focus on hard facts, I would argue that those facts have pointed to catastrophe for a long time [1]. The language of fact is often dry and what most people (myself included) naturally pay attention to are loud/charismatic/flashy presentations of topics. Visualization [2] of data helps understand just how much area we can expect to lose around the coasts. These kinds of datasets are available and scientists do their best to publish them but what the public ultimately gets are articles filtered through journalists who often "translate" what they hear. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rap... [2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.604734166/4504014.1542522935/12/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.60473416...
- edgyquant 5y ago
  I’m not saying that climate change isn’t a problem or that it isn’t going to effect a lot of people. But millions of refugees fleeing the coastal areas and crazy weather patterns are not the same as the end of all life on earth or the end of humanity. Those last two are the common rhetoric from non-scientist who doomsay about climate change and it turns people off or in the worst case makes them think it’s all lies.
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
Have you read anything by Peter Ward? He's a fairly well respected paleontologist who has argued convincingly in both papers and popular books (most notably "Under a Green Sky"), that sudden rises in CO2 have been linked to the majority of major (and many minor) mass extinctions throughout history. He's not alone in scientists out there who believe that rapid climate change is a serious existential risk to humans and many species on Earth. We are already likely in the 6th largest extinction event. If you relax from "extinction" to "collapse of industrial civilization" the number of people who have studied and argued this academically grows quite a bit. I agree that no one seriously believes the extinction of "all life on Earth" is possible, quite a bit survived the End Permian. But existential risk to humans an much life on Earth is not out of the question based on geological evidence. Additionally scientists are humans too, and it is hard for any of us to seriously consider existential threats as realistic. If there's been a bias in past IPCC reports it's been for optimism, frequently ignoring feedback while assuming large scale carbon capture and storage.

imoverclocked 5y ago

While science does tend to keep estimates and language neutral to focus on hard facts, I would argue that those facts have pointed to catastrophe for a long time [1]. The language of fact is often dry and what most people (myself included) naturally pay attention to are loud/charismatic/flashy presentations of topics. Visualization [2] of data helps understand just how much area we can expect to lose around the coasts. These kinds of datasets are available and scientists do their best to publish them but what the public ultimately gets are articles filtered through journalists who often "translate" what they hear. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rap... [2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.604734166/4504014.1542522935/12/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.60473416...

edgyquant 5y ago
I’m not saying that climate change isn’t a problem or that it isn’t going to effect a lot of people. But millions of refugees fleeing the coastal areas and crazy weather patterns are not the same as the end of all life on earth or the end of humanity. Those last two are the common rhetoric from non-scientist who doomsay about climate change and it turns people off or in the worst case makes them think it’s all lies.

baron_harkonnen 5y ago

Have you read anything by Peter Ward? He's a fairly well respected paleontologist who has argued convincingly in both papers and popular books (most notably "Under a Green Sky"), that sudden rises in CO2 have been linked to the majority of major (and many minor) mass extinctions throughout history. He's not alone in scientists out there who believe that rapid climate change is a serious existential risk to humans and many species on Earth. We are already likely in the 6th largest extinction event. If you relax from "extinction" to "collapse of industrial civilization" the number of people who have studied and argued this academically grows quite a bit. I agree that no one seriously believes the extinction of "all life on Earth" is possible, quite a bit survived the End Permian. But existential risk to humans an much life on Earth is not out of the question based on geological evidence. Additionally scientists are humans too, and it is hard for any of us to seriously consider existential threats as realistic. If there's been a bias in past IPCC reports it's been for optimism, frequently ignoring feedback while assuming large scale carbon capture and storage.