5 ms·

I sympathize with this, but if climate experts are to believed, we’ve stalled to the point where we have perhaps a decade to get emissions under control in orde

I sympathize with this, but if climate experts are to believed, we’ve stalled to the point where we have perhaps a decade to get emissions under control in order to meet targets, and most countries haven’t even begun to make significant changes. At some point there will be pain. The question is, “do we want a little pain now or a lot of pain down the road?”. And to be clear, “wearing a coat inside during winter” may just constitute “a little pain” compared to the famines and wars that are likely if we fail to get our emissions to zero in time.

nostrebored 5y ago
Why in the hell would you believe climate experts? The entire argument is poorly done forecasting for a system we don’t understand. The claims are unfalsifiable. It has all of the hallmarks of a scientific fad. When once again the modeling is inaccurate and the claims about temperature change impacts aren’t realized, this will be used as _more proof_.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  >Why in the hell would you believe climate experts? a) because we don't have a spare planet, and b) we kind of like our children. Like Russian roulette, its the risk of being wrong that changes the decision making paradigm from the one you use for 'should I buy bitcoin'.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    Your mistake is weighing superstition vs tangible harm. Eliminating fossil fuels will condemn large swathes of the living population to true poverty and kill many more. How do you think things like hospitals in the developing world run? And the infrastructure that lets them be created to begin with? The idea that we should eliminate fossil fuels is truly a privileged take.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > Your mistake is weighing superstition vs tangible harm. Care to share which of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website, you have: a) read b) understood c) found errors in d) brought to the world's attention? 500, 10, 1, ? I thought not. And yes, of course it sucks - no one wants this. You seem to think the unpleasantness of the diagnosis and remedy gives you and yours an out. https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/
      - Xcelerate 5y ago
        > You seem to think the unpleasantness of the diagnosis and remedy gives you and yours an out. This is such an interesting observation. I had always thought that with a dire enough problem, humanity would band together and come up with a solution at all cost. But after observing the worldwide response to the pandemic, I’m quite sure the world will become engulfed in wildfire and famine while a notable fraction of the population continues to insist that “this is normal and everything is fine”. It’s an odd situation where magical thinking (“it can’t happen to me”) negates self-preservation.
      - irthomasthomas 5y ago
        The IPCC has been making dire predictions now for 3 decades. Can you point to any that came true? Off the top of my head I know that 1. Glacier park was to vanish by 2020. Its still there, barely changed, some glaciers shrank, others grew. 2. Sea level didn't rise as expected. 3 Polar bears are strong, and are not on the endangered list. 4. Temperatures did not rise as much as expected. We are still way below the Roman and Bronze age warm periods. 5. Damage from weather has increased in America, but that is a result of a policy to rebuild, instead of abandoning areas prone to bad weather. Increasing the probability of being damaged by bad weather. Actual weather severity has not changed much. 6. In school, I was made to feel terrified of desertification. The opposite happened, the deserts retreated. The globe is greening. As I said, that is off the top of my head, but it can all be backed up by data. Or prove me wrong. Can you show me a few ipcc predictions which actually came true? Thanks.
- sputr 5y ago
  Poe's law. It's hard to believe real non-troll people who would write such things still exist. So, please tell me, honestly, are you trolling?
Freskis 5y ago
"we have perhaps a decade to get emissions under control" Every year we're told it's our absolute last chance. Environmental brinkmanship hasn't work and the tune needs to be changed. Literally no economies are planning for mass famine or wars because no-one actually believes that is going to happen, except religious cults.
- pjerem 5y ago
  Because every year IS our absolute last chance. Each emitted ton is there "forever" (at least for multiple centuries). Climate change can be stopped (like, paused indefinitely) but can't be reversed. You are right that there is no absolute deadline. Now we are stuck with our hotter summers "forever". But we are not yet stuck with what comes next.
- Maarten88 5y ago
  > no-one actually believes that is going to happen That is the problem exactly. We do not listen to scientists, because it's more convenient to ignore it. And when their models become reality, we'll just blame them for it, as they "knew" and did not prevent it.
  - bubbadoo81 5y ago
    All I'm going to say is always look at where these 'scientists' are getting their funding from. I'm not a climate denier, but realize much of the NGD is really a redistribution of funds. Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels. Then there's the quagmire of what to do with spent batteries. The Earth has heated and cooled over millions of years, so I really doubt we're at the point of no return.
    - tsol 5y ago
      >Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels. Most, compared to all. And power plants are much more efficient at capturing energy than internal combustible engines. I see no real issues with the technology, just small kinks to be worked out, which is expected
datavirtue 5y ago
I have was a denier of: CO2 emitted by humans causes global warming until I studied chemistry. Then it hit me. The earth is warming, we are making it warm faster. This place is normally hot...we are making it worse. The claims sound fantastic if you don't have a solid education. The people you are trying to convince do not have an education that will allow them to understand for themselves. They fundamentally distrust the people trying to convince them. There is no "to be believed." That has already reached the saturation point.
PeterisP 5y ago
In democratic countries, the answer to the question of "do we want a little pain before the elections or a lot of pain down the road?" is quite clear - if you accept the pain now, you'll get voted out and get replaced by someone who will proclaim that the pain isn't needed, promise to undo your measures and kick the problem even further down the road to some other future government.

nostrebored 5y ago

Why in the hell would you believe climate experts? The entire argument is poorly done forecasting for a system we don’t understand. The claims are unfalsifiable. It has all of the hallmarks of a scientific fad. When once again the modeling is inaccurate and the claims about temperature change impacts aren’t realized, this will be used as _more proof_.

throwaway210222 5y ago
>Why in the hell would you believe climate experts? a) because we don't have a spare planet, and b) we kind of like our children. Like Russian roulette, its the risk of being wrong that changes the decision making paradigm from the one you use for 'should I buy bitcoin'.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  Your mistake is weighing superstition vs tangible harm. Eliminating fossil fuels will condemn large swathes of the living population to true poverty and kill many more. How do you think things like hospitals in the developing world run? And the infrastructure that lets them be created to begin with? The idea that we should eliminate fossil fuels is truly a privileged take.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > Your mistake is weighing superstition vs tangible harm. Care to share which of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website, you have: a) read b) understood c) found errors in d) brought to the world's attention? 500, 10, 1, ? I thought not. And yes, of course it sucks - no one wants this. You seem to think the unpleasantness of the diagnosis and remedy gives you and yours an out. https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/
    - Xcelerate 5y ago
      > You seem to think the unpleasantness of the diagnosis and remedy gives you and yours an out. This is such an interesting observation. I had always thought that with a dire enough problem, humanity would band together and come up with a solution at all cost. But after observing the worldwide response to the pandemic, I’m quite sure the world will become engulfed in wildfire and famine while a notable fraction of the population continues to insist that “this is normal and everything is fine”. It’s an odd situation where magical thinking (“it can’t happen to me”) negates self-preservation.
    - irthomasthomas 5y ago
      The IPCC has been making dire predictions now for 3 decades. Can you point to any that came true? Off the top of my head I know that 1. Glacier park was to vanish by 2020. Its still there, barely changed, some glaciers shrank, others grew. 2. Sea level didn't rise as expected. 3 Polar bears are strong, and are not on the endangered list. 4. Temperatures did not rise as much as expected. We are still way below the Roman and Bronze age warm periods. 5. Damage from weather has increased in America, but that is a result of a policy to rebuild, instead of abandoning areas prone to bad weather. Increasing the probability of being damaged by bad weather. Actual weather severity has not changed much. 6. In school, I was made to feel terrified of desertification. The opposite happened, the deserts retreated. The globe is greening. As I said, that is off the top of my head, but it can all be backed up by data. Or prove me wrong. Can you show me a few ipcc predictions which actually came true? Thanks.
sputr 5y ago
Poe's law. It's hard to believe real non-troll people who would write such things still exist. So, please tell me, honestly, are you trolling?

Freskis 5y ago

"we have perhaps a decade to get emissions under control" Every year we're told it's our absolute last chance. Environmental brinkmanship hasn't work and the tune needs to be changed. Literally no economies are planning for mass famine or wars because no-one actually believes that is going to happen, except religious cults.

pjerem 5y ago
Because every year IS our absolute last chance. Each emitted ton is there "forever" (at least for multiple centuries). Climate change can be stopped (like, paused indefinitely) but can't be reversed. You are right that there is no absolute deadline. Now we are stuck with our hotter summers "forever". But we are not yet stuck with what comes next.
Maarten88 5y ago
> no-one actually believes that is going to happen That is the problem exactly. We do not listen to scientists, because it's more convenient to ignore it. And when their models become reality, we'll just blame them for it, as they "knew" and did not prevent it.
- bubbadoo81 5y ago
  All I'm going to say is always look at where these 'scientists' are getting their funding from. I'm not a climate denier, but realize much of the NGD is really a redistribution of funds. Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels. Then there's the quagmire of what to do with spent batteries. The Earth has heated and cooled over millions of years, so I really doubt we're at the point of no return.
  - tsol 5y ago
    >Driving EV machines will still require electricity, most of which is still generated by fossil fuels. Most, compared to all. And power plants are much more efficient at capturing energy than internal combustible engines. I see no real issues with the technology, just small kinks to be worked out, which is expected

datavirtue 5y ago

I have was a denier of: CO2 emitted by humans causes global warming until I studied chemistry. Then it hit me. The earth is warming, we are making it warm faster. This place is normally hot...we are making it worse. The claims sound fantastic if you don't have a solid education. The people you are trying to convince do not have an education that will allow them to understand for themselves. They fundamentally distrust the people trying to convince them. There is no "to be believed." That has already reached the saturation point.

PeterisP 5y ago

In democratic countries, the answer to the question of "do we want a little pain before the elections or a lot of pain down the road?" is quite clear - if you accept the pain now, you'll get voted out and get replaced by someone who will proclaim that the pain isn't needed, promise to undo your measures and kick the problem even further down the road to some other future government.