4 ms·
We can't even get people to wear a mask to help stop the spread of a respiratory disease let alone take a vaccine that may save their life and will unquestionab
by cletus 5y ago
We can't even get people to wear a mask to help stop the spread of a respiratory disease let alone take a vaccine that may save their life and will unquestionably save the lives of others.
So there are two possibilities here:
1. This claim, unlike all previous such claims, is true. In that case, we're screwed anyway, so what does it matter?; or
2. This claim is false, in which case we just further teach people to distrust science.
I always wonder when I see these alarmist end-of-the-world predictions: Do those making these claims believe them? As in, are the claims made honestly or dishonestly? It could be either.
A good way of thinking about any claim is to ask yourself who the audience is.
So when a company or university makes a claim about new groundbreaking battery tech that if it ever reaches the market and all the naive assumptions hold true in the most optimistic way then it'll be 1,000x better than current batteries, the audience is investors, donors, those who provide research grants or decide tenure and so on.
So we have climate deniers who won't believe any of this anyway and those who are to varying degrees believe in climate change who don't really need to be convinced. Additionally, extreme or alarmist predictions tend to have the opposite of the desired effect. It tends to entrench opposing views and alienate the more moderates.
But I imagine there are certain political and academic circles where alarmist predictions and the associated publicity are good currency for "street cred" with their contemporaries.
For the record, I believe humans are having an impact on climate change, that change is likely to have some hugely negative consequences but, most importantly, there's really nothing we can do about it altruistically. Any solution will be purely economic. Fossil fuels will be replaced when it becomes cheaper to do so and not a moment before.
- olalonde 5y ago> Additionally, extreme or alarmist predictions tend to have the opposite of the desired effect. It tends to entrench opposing views and alienate the more moderates. Bingo (I'm one of those). And your analogy with COVID is extremely interesting. It somewhat reinforces my belief that the negative impacts of climate change are probably overstated. 1) Most early COVID predictions by experts vastly overstated the deadliness of the virus and its impact[0]. 2) There is some evidence that wearing a mask helps prevent COVID transmission, but not by much. Is it worth wearing a mask 24/7 for the rest of our lives? Probably not. 3) Taking a vaccine does not "unquestionably save the lives of others". Recent studies have shown that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus.[1] I could go on. I believe in vaccination and am vaccinated. I believe in climate change. But I am very hesitant to accept broad doomsday predictions by climate scientists which involve a mix of economics, society, politics, etc. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/ [1] https://fee.org/articles/stunning-new-study-undercuts-the-case-for-vaccine-mandates/ https://fee.org/articles/stunning-new-study-undercuts-the-ca...
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago>But I am very hesitant to accept broad doomsday predictions by climate scientists which involve a mix of economics, society, politics, etc. My assumption is that climate scientists actually see the most extreme examples of changes to environments that are most sensitive to it, and this (to some degree) exaggerates their extrapolation of the effects to the rest of the world. This tends towards alarmism in the same way that computer security experts see the internet as one giant mass of exploitable holes teetering on the edge of catastrophic collapse. Watch the documentary Chasing Ice. If "climate effects on glaciers" is your niche expertise, the future looks very short. I mentally dial the doomsday predictions back a bit to factor in "the rest of the world", and it still looks pretty bleak to me. Additionally, I factor in the qualifications and 'source of income' of those arguing against it. There are a lot of radio and TV personalities who are vehemently opposed to "what science has to say", accusing climate scientists of the self-justification of their chosen career. I find that to be one of the most pristine examples of hypocrisy in existence. It's also inescapable.