4 ms·

Yesterday I noticed that on July 2nd someone left a review for a movie that said in part "They did have to put in Climate change nonsense. Wonder if that is a r

Yesterday I noticed that on July 2nd someone left a review for a movie that said in part "They did have to put in Climate change nonsense. Wonder if that is a requirement with funding so AL gore can get billions of more tax dollars. 1168 people found this helpful." It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
I used to assume that people, on the whole, were rational and reasonable. I now understand that most people can maintain rationality only for the domains in which they have first-hand experience or education, and otherwise will resort to hearsay, fantastical speculations, conspiratorial thinking, and propaganda of all sorts. It is becoming ever more clear to me that the potential genius of a representative system of government is the chance for citizens to put their trust into informed and reasoned individuals to make decisions in their name. We should elect reasoned people, and review their record, not day to day, but bi-yearly, so that our ignorance does not impede their work. Of course, when the representative system has been distorted as it has, we do not trust or respect our representatives.
anonymousiam 5y ago
Yes, and many of those people are scientists. Skepticism is (or should be) a normal part of the scientific method. Controls and reproducible results need to happen before results can be considered conclusive. I understand that sometimes this is impossible in climate science. Climate change is a fact. Humans being responsible for increasing CO2 levels is a fact. Whether the consequences of raising CO2 levels will be more detrimental than beneficial is yet to be seen. There is little that the western world can do to slow CO2 emission growth. Raising taxes doesn't accomplish much. Also, accurate observations of Greenland (present day and historical) are available here: http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
- gamegoblin 5y ago
  Even setting aside warming affects of CO2, it’s well-understood that increasing atmospheric carbon leads to ocean acidification which is much more inarguably a massive net negative.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    Perhaps, but perhaps not. In the history of the Earth, CO2 levels have been significantly higher for a much longer time. (See here: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ and note that the time-line is on a log scale.) Worst-case projections show that at our present CO2 growth rate, things will get bad rather quickly, but keep in mind that the Earth's climate cycles have many (not well understood) self-regulation systems. Increased atmospheric CO2 may lead to explosive vegetation growth which may lead to increased carbon sequestration.
    - gamegoblin 5y ago
      CO2 has historically been higher, but life on earth, and ocean life in particular, was completely different that what we have today. The rate of ocean acidification is such that species do not have millennia to evolve to handle increased CO2 levels and are experiencing massive die-offs. An extremely well-understood effect is that ocean acidification thins the shells of shellfish. This may seem like a minor effect, but rapidly upsetting the food chain of the ocean seems like an absurdly risky experiment to run on the planet we inhabit.
    - space_fountain 5y ago
      So obviously the most apocalyptic predictions are wrong. Life on planet earth can and will survive this. My view is life on planet earth can survive most things we're capable of throwing at it, but the question isn't will we sterilize the planet. The questions is will it be a bad time for humans and yeah rapidly changing the composition of the ocean will be bad for humans. How bad I don't know, but pretty clearly bad
umvi 5y ago
> It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people. No need to be incredulous. Any issue that is politicized by default will cause polarization of beliefs on the subject. If you haven't realized this by now, take a look at covid. Because climate change is politicized, your political affiliation changes how you view the issue (because your political affiliation affects your trusted sources of information in the world): Extreme left: "Humanity's only hope for survival is to colonize Mars. Climate change will have apocalyptic consequences for the planet in the very near future, and earth is pretty much doomed. Nothing short of an authoritarian new world government can hope to approach sequestering the amount of carbon we need to reverse the effects." Far left: "Climate change is THE biggest threat facing humanity. This problem MUST be prioritized at all costs above all other problems, NOW." Middle left: "Climate change is real, but what can I really do? I already drive a Nissan Leaf and recycle. Our best bet is to transition to renewables/nuclear and hope for technological breakthroughs in the future." Middle right: "Climate change is probably real, but taking drastic action seems unreasonable considering how long it's taking to see daily life impacted by it. At this rate, society will crumble due to in-fighting before it crumbles due to climate change." Far right: "Climate change might exist, but the earth's climate has always changed. Just ignore the alarmist/fearmongering liberals, they are always freaking out about stuff that just isn't that deadly for the average person." Extreme right: "Climate change does not exist. Let's go coal roll some Teslas."
- irrational 5y ago
  The fact that the right uses probably, might, and not exists is the real problem. When something is an indisputable fact, yet an entire group of people dispute it, that is a cause for alarm.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Nothing in science is an indisputable fact. That's part of what makes it science.
    - freemint 5y ago
wesleywt 5y ago
When you consider people denying the existence of Covid while being in the hospital ICU with it, it is not surprizing. The saddest thing about last few years is finding out easy and effective propaganda is.
titzer 5y ago
> It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people. Most will take that denial to their graves. For some, many even, it's part of their cultural identity to reject all indication that their lifestyle isn't the flat-out awesomest and most moral way to live in the whole history of humankind.
- norov 5y ago
  More like it's against their cultural identity to ever validate "the liberals".
ku-man 5y ago
"It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people." Well, having hysterical kids screaming around climate doomsday, doesn't help.
xupybd 5y ago
I blame alarmists like Al Gore. When people don't understand the science they only go by the public claims. Al Gore's movie made claims that failed to happen. It might be that he just got the time scale wrong but he lost the trust of the public. Climate science uses very hard to understand models it's out of reach of the lay person. So they have to trust the experts. Their only access to the experts is via the media. The current media is untrustworthy as they exaggerate to increase interest and gain click / views. Look at the impact this is having on politics in the US. Left and Right media are telling very different stories with the truth often somewhere in the middle. The resulting fracture is causing huge division.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

I used to assume that people, on the whole, were rational and reasonable. I now understand that most people can maintain rationality only for the domains in which they have first-hand experience or education, and otherwise will resort to hearsay, fantastical speculations, conspiratorial thinking, and propaganda of all sorts. It is becoming ever more clear to me that the potential genius of a representative system of government is the chance for citizens to put their trust into informed and reasoned individuals to make decisions in their name. We should elect reasoned people, and review their record, not day to day, but bi-yearly, so that our ignorance does not impede their work. Of course, when the representative system has been distorted as it has, we do not trust or respect our representatives.

anonymousiam 5y ago

Yes, and many of those people are scientists. Skepticism is (or should be) a normal part of the scientific method. Controls and reproducible results need to happen before results can be considered conclusive. I understand that sometimes this is impossible in climate science. Climate change is a fact. Humans being responsible for increasing CO2 levels is a fact. Whether the consequences of raising CO2 levels will be more detrimental than beneficial is yet to be seen. There is little that the western world can do to slow CO2 emission growth. Raising taxes doesn't accomplish much. Also, accurate observations of Greenland (present day and historical) are available here: http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

gamegoblin 5y ago
Even setting aside warming affects of CO2, it’s well-understood that increasing atmospheric carbon leads to ocean acidification which is much more inarguably a massive net negative.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Perhaps, but perhaps not. In the history of the Earth, CO2 levels have been significantly higher for a much longer time. (See here: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ and note that the time-line is on a log scale.) Worst-case projections show that at our present CO2 growth rate, things will get bad rather quickly, but keep in mind that the Earth's climate cycles have many (not well understood) self-regulation systems. Increased atmospheric CO2 may lead to explosive vegetation growth which may lead to increased carbon sequestration.
  - gamegoblin 5y ago
    CO2 has historically been higher, but life on earth, and ocean life in particular, was completely different that what we have today. The rate of ocean acidification is such that species do not have millennia to evolve to handle increased CO2 levels and are experiencing massive die-offs. An extremely well-understood effect is that ocean acidification thins the shells of shellfish. This may seem like a minor effect, but rapidly upsetting the food chain of the ocean seems like an absurdly risky experiment to run on the planet we inhabit.
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    So obviously the most apocalyptic predictions are wrong. Life on planet earth can and will survive this. My view is life on planet earth can survive most things we're capable of throwing at it, but the question isn't will we sterilize the planet. The questions is will it be a bad time for humans and yeah rapidly changing the composition of the ocean will be bad for humans. How bad I don't know, but pretty clearly bad

umvi 5y ago

> It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people. No need to be incredulous. Any issue that is politicized by default will cause polarization of beliefs on the subject. If you haven't realized this by now, take a look at covid. Because climate change is politicized, your political affiliation changes how you view the issue (because your political affiliation affects your trusted sources of information in the world): Extreme left: "Humanity's only hope for survival is to colonize Mars. Climate change will have apocalyptic consequences for the planet in the very near future, and earth is pretty much doomed. Nothing short of an authoritarian new world government can hope to approach sequestering the amount of carbon we need to reverse the effects." Far left: "Climate change is THE biggest threat facing humanity. This problem MUST be prioritized at all costs above all other problems, NOW." Middle left: "Climate change is real, but what can I really do? I already drive a Nissan Leaf and recycle. Our best bet is to transition to renewables/nuclear and hope for technological breakthroughs in the future." Middle right: "Climate change is probably real, but taking drastic action seems unreasonable considering how long it's taking to see daily life impacted by it. At this rate, society will crumble due to in-fighting before it crumbles due to climate change." Far right: "Climate change might exist, but the earth's climate has always changed. Just ignore the alarmist/fearmongering liberals, they are always freaking out about stuff that just isn't that deadly for the average person." Extreme right: "Climate change does not exist. Let's go coal roll some Teslas."

irrational 5y ago
The fact that the right uses probably, might, and not exists is the real problem. When something is an indisputable fact, yet an entire group of people dispute it, that is a cause for alarm.
- soperj 5y ago
  Nothing in science is an indisputable fact. That's part of what makes it science.
  - freemint 5y ago

wesleywt 5y ago

When you consider people denying the existence of Covid while being in the hospital ICU with it, it is not surprizing. The saddest thing about last few years is finding out easy and effective propaganda is.

titzer 5y ago

> It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people. Most will take that denial to their graves. For some, many even, it's part of their cultural identity to reject all indication that their lifestyle isn't the flat-out awesomest and most moral way to live in the whole history of humankind.

norov 5y ago
More like it's against their cultural identity to ever validate "the liberals".

ku-man 5y ago

"It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people." Well, having hysterical kids screaming around climate doomsday, doesn't help.

xupybd 5y ago

I blame alarmists like Al Gore. When people don't understand the science they only go by the public claims. Al Gore's movie made claims that failed to happen. It might be that he just got the time scale wrong but he lost the trust of the public. Climate science uses very hard to understand models it's out of reach of the lay person. So they have to trust the experts. Their only access to the experts is via the media. The current media is untrustworthy as they exaggerate to increase interest and gain click / views. Look at the impact this is having on politics in the US. Left and Right media are telling very different stories with the truth often somewhere in the middle. The resulting fracture is causing huge division.