5 ms·

These one-sided apocalyptical type of content are useless: - They are porn for people who are already believer in global warming, and show more material to say

by polote 5y ago

These one-sided apocalyptical type of content are useless: - They are porn for people who are already believer in global warming, and show more material to say "look that what I said will happen" without doing changing anything in their daily lives. - They are maybe right but display a false negative picture of what is going to happen for people who tend to deny global warming. The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance. EDIT: I'm not saying we are powerless or don't know at all what is going to happen. We have a feeling of what is going to happen (temperature increase, sea level increase and other things) but we cannot accurately predict what, when and how this is going to happen

saboot 5y ago
The video is cheesy but to say we are powerless to predict and prepare, and hopefully mitigate, is nihilism and apathy.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Not once does the commenter suggest we cannot prepare or take action.
esarbe 5y ago
> already believer Hrm. So, if one follows the scientific consensus[0] and actually takes into consideration the political and social consequences of the scientific consensus one is a ... believer? I think at that point, you really have to ask yourself where the burden of proof really is. And if not the ones not-"believing" in the fact of global warming are the ones following some kind of believe system. > The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance. Dude, that bullshit and you know it. We know what's happening. We've known it for a very long time. The scientists employed by companies like Exxon, BP, Total et all recognized in the seventies that there's a huge problem and that we are wreaking havoc with our dependence on fossil fuels. So don't 'We don't know what's happening" me. We know what's happening, we can model it and we can use these models to create predictions. And the picture is not nice, you know. Funny thing; the predictions by previously mentioned scientists from world-famous oil producers actually created very accurate models that hold up today. It's only political meddling that 'softened' these models to to make climate change and global warming not appear as drastic as it is. > doing changing anything in their daily lives. That's a fallacy. I can doing changing everything in my life and it will not change a iota. This is not some kind of personal responsibility-issue. This needs a concentrated global effort. Not some backyard hippies doing composting. [0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate. We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
  - esarbe 5y ago
    > So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate. I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure. Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)! The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no. So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way. > We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure). The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not. The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.

by polote 5y ago

saboot 5y ago

The video is cheesy but to say we are powerless to predict and prepare, and hopefully mitigate, is nihilism and apathy.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Not once does the commenter suggest we cannot prepare or take action.

esarbe 5y ago

> already believer Hrm. So, if one follows the scientific consensus[0] and actually takes into consideration the political and social consequences of the scientific consensus one is a ... believer? I think at that point, you really have to ask yourself where the burden of proof really is. And if not the ones not-"believing" in the fact of global warming are the ones following some kind of believe system. > The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance. Dude, that bullshit and you know it. We know what's happening. We've known it for a very long time. The scientists employed by companies like Exxon, BP, Total et all recognized in the seventies that there's a huge problem and that we are wreaking havoc with our dependence on fossil fuels. So don't 'We don't know what's happening" me. We know what's happening, we can model it and we can use these models to create predictions. And the picture is not nice, you know. Funny thing; the predictions by previously mentioned scientists from world-famous oil producers actually created very accurate models that hold up today. It's only political meddling that 'softened' these models to to make climate change and global warming not appear as drastic as it is. > doing changing anything in their daily lives. That's a fallacy. I can doing changing everything in my life and it will not change a iota. This is not some kind of personal responsibility-issue. This needs a concentrated global effort. Not some backyard hippies doing composting. [0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...

RandomLensman 5y ago
To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate. We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
- esarbe 5y ago
  > So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate. I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure. Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)! The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no. So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way. > We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure). The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not. The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.