4 ms·

The climate wasn’t stable to begin with.

paganel 4y ago
This is a secular apocalyptic religion by this point, I’m afraid that arguing based on past facts won’t have any effect.
- Comevius 4y ago
  How is a scientific consensus religion? Millions of hours of research is going into climate change every month. Satellites, tens of thousands of sensors, 30 years of academic literature, computer simulations. Meanwhile climate change deniers are sitting on their couches pulling things out of their asses, cherry picking data from publications they didn't write, removing all context to support their argument. Posting content on Youtube, Twitter, TikTok and Substack is all these people do, either for subscribers or for conservative think tanks financed by the fossil fuel industry.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    On one hand we have people denying anything is happening and on the other we have a doom cult where people people civilization is going to end because of the weather. Like people who don’t want to have children because they’re afraid of the consequences of climate change. Tell people that there’s going to be change but things are going to be mostly ok and some of them just lose their minds.
    - Comevius 4y ago
      The IPCC reports don't paint a picture that things are going to be mostly okay, and those reports in many ways are conservative, because they can't include feedback loops and tipping points we are not entirely sure about. Complicated systems tend to show only subtle signs before they rapidly collapse. AI is a new approach that might actually help us asses the risks better. Climate change is a mine field. Telling people that we are going to be okay, while not doing anything to manage the risk is a lie. Rapid, extreme changes are coming, and they are going to test our civilization's ability to survive. Many parts of the planet will be inhabitable. And that's in a few decades, not even centuries. Unfortunately this is out reality, like it or not. We don't get another one, so it's important what we are doing something about it. But we don't because of people like you living comfortable lies, not willing to look up.
      - bionsystem 4y ago
        > Many parts of the planet will be inhabitable. And that's in a few decades, not even centuries. I don't think it's going to be a few decades. I think as you said the models are too conservatives. We are already seeing things that they didn't predict.
  - paganel 4y ago
    > How is a scientific consensus religion? I don't think that's a "scientific consensus" on the end of the civilised world coming, that's what I'm talking about, that's what the narrative is. There are countless examples of Ancient Greek cities/towns that are now several feet under the sea-level, and still, here we are, ~2500 years later and still doing our thing. The Cyrenaica and Northern Africa more generally was/were the bread-basket of the Roman Empire, they're not anymore, and yet, here we are, ~2000 years later, we've found other bread-baskets.
    - Comevius 4y ago
      https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The civilized world now comprises of 8 billion people on a planet of depleting resources, energy crisis, pollution, and worst of all a man-made climate change that's many magnitudes faster than any before. Good luck finding another bread-basket on an inhabitable planet with oceans having widespread oxygen-starved dead zones, a malfunctioning biological carbon pump, collapsing food web, extreme temperatures, intense droughts, diseases and conflicts. We are seeing these happening already, and it's only going to get worst, much worst, as we reach the tipping points.
  - scohesc 4y ago
    Would you not say that there's many many people that don't truly understand the intricacies of what science is and what it's become, but still follow it without asking questions? Academically, I would assume that for the majority of people, science was something you were taught to trust growing up, being told that scientists have your best interests in mind while they spend time finding out everything about the world and coming up with reasons/theories for the way the world works and interacts with itself. The world wouldn't be anything without science, they say. Religion is based on a set of beliefs, followings, teachings, determined and taught/shared by "qualified" individuals like priests/pastors - followers were raised from a young age to follow, internalize, and spread their faith. The world wouldn't exist without God, they said. When you go to church (catholic in this example), you're asked/silently obligated to donate to the church when the collection plate is passed around. You're giving money, and debatably power (in form of money) to the church to keep spreading their beliefs. I think it would be foolish to assume that there weren't rich kings/countries hundred of years ago giving money to the church to influence certain activities/actions through religious decree/law. I would also be a fool to not believe the church would influence the governments to act in certain ways based on how much power the church had had to control/influence it's followers. Today, we have numerous examples of corporations lobbying governmental and scientific institutions to push whatever is the cause de jour. There was corn syrup lobbying in the 2010's and who knows how far back, you had the food pyramid in the 90's that heavily promoted food groups that the USDA itself was subsidizing. There's so many outside influences, blind faith/trust, etc. etc. that I feel comfortable in todays day and age saying that society in general "trusts" science like they would "trust" a religion to keep them safe and alive, and healthy - and therefore this "trust" can be exploited to invoke fear, uncertainty, and ultimately convince people that the harm they're going through or the actions they're being forced to take, is for their own good - with the other followers chastising or guilting the others or "non-believers" into believing what _they_ think is the truth. Do you kind of see what I'm getting at? It might seem completely odd-ball to you, but it's how a lot of people interpret and understand what's going on. Science isn't this 100% true, be-all, end-all thing because it will _always_ corrupted by governments, corporate interests, NGO influence, etc. etc. etc.
    - Comevius 4y ago
- leet_thow 4y ago
  "The end of the world is coming because humans are evil" - religious whackos, also environmental whackos
adrianN 4y ago
Theres's a slight difference between the Earth cycling between warm and cold periods on timelines that span millennia and us warming the planet by several degrees over 150 years.
JW_00000 4y ago
What is the largest increase/decrease in global average temperature we've seen over a 100 year span since humans have existed on Earth, before the Industrial Revolution? How does that compare to the last 100 years?

This is a secular apocalyptic religion by this point, I’m afraid that arguing based on past facts won’t have any effect.

Comevius 4y ago
How is a scientific consensus religion? Millions of hours of research is going into climate change every month. Satellites, tens of thousands of sensors, 30 years of academic literature, computer simulations. Meanwhile climate change deniers are sitting on their couches pulling things out of their asses, cherry picking data from publications they didn't write, removing all context to support their argument. Posting content on Youtube, Twitter, TikTok and Substack is all these people do, either for subscribers or for conservative think tanks financed by the fossil fuel industry.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  On one hand we have people denying anything is happening and on the other we have a doom cult where people people civilization is going to end because of the weather. Like people who don’t want to have children because they’re afraid of the consequences of climate change. Tell people that there’s going to be change but things are going to be mostly ok and some of them just lose their minds.
  - Comevius 4y ago
    The IPCC reports don't paint a picture that things are going to be mostly okay, and those reports in many ways are conservative, because they can't include feedback loops and tipping points we are not entirely sure about. Complicated systems tend to show only subtle signs before they rapidly collapse. AI is a new approach that might actually help us asses the risks better. Climate change is a mine field. Telling people that we are going to be okay, while not doing anything to manage the risk is a lie. Rapid, extreme changes are coming, and they are going to test our civilization's ability to survive. Many parts of the planet will be inhabitable. And that's in a few decades, not even centuries. Unfortunately this is out reality, like it or not. We don't get another one, so it's important what we are doing something about it. But we don't because of people like you living comfortable lies, not willing to look up.
    - bionsystem 4y ago
      > Many parts of the planet will be inhabitable. And that's in a few decades, not even centuries. I don't think it's going to be a few decades. I think as you said the models are too conservatives. We are already seeing things that they didn't predict.
- paganel 4y ago
  > How is a scientific consensus religion? I don't think that's a "scientific consensus" on the end of the civilised world coming, that's what I'm talking about, that's what the narrative is. There are countless examples of Ancient Greek cities/towns that are now several feet under the sea-level, and still, here we are, ~2500 years later and still doing our thing. The Cyrenaica and Northern Africa more generally was/were the bread-basket of the Roman Empire, they're not anymore, and yet, here we are, ~2000 years later, we've found other bread-baskets.
  - Comevius 4y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The civilized world now comprises of 8 billion people on a planet of depleting resources, energy crisis, pollution, and worst of all a man-made climate change that's many magnitudes faster than any before. Good luck finding another bread-basket on an inhabitable planet with oceans having widespread oxygen-starved dead zones, a malfunctioning biological carbon pump, collapsing food web, extreme temperatures, intense droughts, diseases and conflicts. We are seeing these happening already, and it's only going to get worst, much worst, as we reach the tipping points.
- scohesc 4y ago
  Would you not say that there's many many people that don't truly understand the intricacies of what science is and what it's become, but still follow it without asking questions? Academically, I would assume that for the majority of people, science was something you were taught to trust growing up, being told that scientists have your best interests in mind while they spend time finding out everything about the world and coming up with reasons/theories for the way the world works and interacts with itself. The world wouldn't be anything without science, they say. Religion is based on a set of beliefs, followings, teachings, determined and taught/shared by "qualified" individuals like priests/pastors - followers were raised from a young age to follow, internalize, and spread their faith. The world wouldn't exist without God, they said. When you go to church (catholic in this example), you're asked/silently obligated to donate to the church when the collection plate is passed around. You're giving money, and debatably power (in form of money) to the church to keep spreading their beliefs. I think it would be foolish to assume that there weren't rich kings/countries hundred of years ago giving money to the church to influence certain activities/actions through religious decree/law. I would also be a fool to not believe the church would influence the governments to act in certain ways based on how much power the church had had to control/influence it's followers. Today, we have numerous examples of corporations lobbying governmental and scientific institutions to push whatever is the cause de jour. There was corn syrup lobbying in the 2010's and who knows how far back, you had the food pyramid in the 90's that heavily promoted food groups that the USDA itself was subsidizing. There's so many outside influences, blind faith/trust, etc. etc. that I feel comfortable in todays day and age saying that society in general "trusts" science like they would "trust" a religion to keep them safe and alive, and healthy - and therefore this "trust" can be exploited to invoke fear, uncertainty, and ultimately convince people that the harm they're going through or the actions they're being forced to take, is for their own good - with the other followers chastising or guilting the others or "non-believers" into believing what _they_ think is the truth. Do you kind of see what I'm getting at? It might seem completely odd-ball to you, but it's how a lot of people interpret and understand what's going on. Science isn't this 100% true, be-all, end-all thing because it will _always_ corrupted by governments, corporate interests, NGO influence, etc. etc. etc.
  - Comevius 4y ago
leet_thow 4y ago
"The end of the world is coming because humans are evil" - religious whackos, also environmental whackos

adrianN 4y ago

Theres's a slight difference between the Earth cycling between warm and cold periods on timelines that span millennia and us warming the planet by several degrees over 150 years.

JW_00000 4y ago

What is the largest increase/decrease in global average temperature we've seen over a 100 year span since humans have existed on Earth, before the Industrial Revolution? How does that compare to the last 100 years?