5 ms·

Al Gore made a movie about climate change so the other team was obligated to violently disbelieve in it.

mmastrac 4y ago
Oddly the political view tag suggests that it's an opposing team issue, but even left-leaning folks did have a blip. Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly) The good news is that even the most staunchly anti-climate-change group, conservative republicans, are nearly at 50/50 when it comes to whether it's happening at all.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly) Probably not because I just spotted something from that link that I find even more interesting: On the radios in the upper-right, switch to "policy support". There was a very sudden shift in 2013, from consistently down to consistently up. ...and now that I think about it, I think that might actually explain it: The sudden drop in the late 2000s might be due to the great recession. They may have accidentally measured "why do I care?" instead of "is it happening?", and maybe it took until 2013 for peoples' lives to stabilize enough to care again.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  The reactionaries have a strategy that’s like the old “embrace, extend, extinguish”… “deny, rationalize, accept”. Post-Al Gore, it was “don’t believe your lying eyes”. That gradually pivoted to “climate change is happening, but it’s a natural cycle”. Eventually it will pivot to “meh” or “it’s gods will”. It’s a pattern applied to lots of issues by the reactionary elements. It works because it’s easy to deny and subsequently concede small points. We’ve trained a generation to be adept at this online.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. When the hyperbolic claims about Global Warming with runaway climate forcing failed, it was swiftly rebranded Climate Change. At which point, the critics became accurate, since climatic periods are measured in 30 year intervals, and weather != climate. Solar Radiance being the keymost driver of earth's temperature of course, varies due to the natural cycle and supercycles of the Sun [1] The longterm trend of deglaciation and CO2 levels rising back to nearer Earth's historical norms continues unabated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
- deadbolt 4y ago
  > Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. How would you define those two terms?
  - transcriptase 4y ago
    One is an observable phenomenon. The other gets grant money in perpetuity no matter what the data says.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deadbolt 4y ago
      I wasn't asking you, but okay.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    Climate Change could include onset of an ice age?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
      Russian Climate Scientists readily talk about ice age onsets. When I was in my youth, that was the buzz at the time. My, how the winds have changed.
- evol262 4y ago
  GWB rebranded it as Climate Change, not anybody else. Solar forcing is completely accounted for in the models, in all areas (albedo, bouncing in the galactic plane, distance from the Sun). The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. Climactic periods are not "measured" in any kind of arbitrary 3 decade cycle. Even if you want to pretend that they are, and we are returning to some kind of baseline (which every bit of science says we are not -- we are going to dramatically overshoot it), humanity did not evolve under those "historical norms". Our society and agriculture and population patterns did not emerge under those "historical norms". Returning to those "historical norms" will mean the largest population migration in human history, with a large amount of it from nuclear states which already have shooting skirmishes in their borderlands facing an existential crisis over water (India, Pakistan, China). Those "historical norms" are not necessarily compatible with civilization. Before you talk about how much farmland it is going to "open", ask yourself how well the supply chain did during COVID. Then ask yourself what will happen to it during a population migration. Ask yourself what happens when deep water ports at low sea level start having problems, and how we would get crude to refineries to get bitumen to even make asphalt to create infrastructure in the new "open" land, how we'd transport concrete and steel there if there are interruptions in the supply chain which impact diesel production. Ask yourself how long it will take to transform old-growth forest and granite-filled glacial retreat zones in Canada into arable land, how easily we'll be able to get chemical fertilizers, etc. Even if you want to talk about how this is some kind of "historical norm", the question ultimately becomes not "is this anthropogenic?" (it is, but it doesn't matter), but "how do we intend to survive this as a species?"
llanowarelves 4y ago
Giving cataclysmic predictions that don't happen, and quietly ignoring them when the year comes to replace it with the next cataclysmic prediction, is much like how some religious people say we're always either in or about to be in the End of Days. And is treated the same. Especially when malincentives like regulators lining their pockets are involved ("Carbon credits" can be like a type of religious indulgence). More measured approaches on shorter timescales -- actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people -- is taken more seriously.
- yongjik 4y ago
  > actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people Is this yet another allusion on Al Gore and his infamous private jet? Last year, 506,769 airplanes either took off or landed in LAX only. That's 1388 per day in one airport. All packed to the gill by "little people" like you and me. Al Gore could fly his jet across the Pacific every day and it would be literally a drop in the bucket-full of little guys, in the grand scheme of things. I'm tired of these talks of "big guys ruining the environment," which is conveniently only brought up when these big guys talk about the environment. This is plain simple "hate the message, shoot the messenger" strategy.
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    Cool, so I can morally use as much as I want because in the grand scheme of things I am just one person. You know what, I agree with that. Now I don't have to change my behavior for any of this stuff. I just needed to see myself as important as them. Thank you for this change in perspective. Now I can say a few words about the environment, while consuming as much as possible, and you'll have to defend me from critique. By "big fish" I actually meant companies (who are a prime shake-down target for carbon credits), but if for the rich, celebs, and politicians the shoe fits... They are supposed to have noblesse oblige.
    - ForHackernews 4y ago

Oddly the political view tag suggests that it's an opposing team issue, but even left-leaning folks did have a blip. Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly) The good news is that even the most staunchly anti-climate-change group, conservative republicans, are nearly at 50/50 when it comes to whether it's happening at all.

Izkata 4y ago
> Maybe it's just a survey issue with the first datapoint? (I can't seem to link to the political view tab directly) Probably not because I just spotted something from that link that I find even more interesting: On the radios in the upper-right, switch to "policy support". There was a very sudden shift in 2013, from consistently down to consistently up. ...and now that I think about it, I think that might actually explain it: The sudden drop in the late 2000s might be due to the great recession. They may have accidentally measured "why do I care?" instead of "is it happening?", and maybe it took until 2013 for peoples' lives to stabilize enough to care again.
Spooky23 4y ago
The reactionaries have a strategy that’s like the old “embrace, extend, extinguish”… “deny, rationalize, accept”. Post-Al Gore, it was “don’t believe your lying eyes”. That gradually pivoted to “climate change is happening, but it’s a natural cycle”. Eventually it will pivot to “meh” or “it’s gods will”. It’s a pattern applied to lots of issues by the reactionary elements. It works because it’s easy to deny and subsequently concede small points. We’ve trained a generation to be adept at this online.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. When the hyperbolic claims about Global Warming with runaway climate forcing failed, it was swiftly rebranded Climate Change. At which point, the critics became accurate, since climatic periods are measured in 30 year intervals, and weather != climate. Solar Radiance being the keymost driver of earth's temperature of course, varies due to the natural cycle and supercycles of the Sun [1] The longterm trend of deglaciation and CO2 levels rising back to nearer Earth's historical norms continues unabated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

deadbolt 4y ago
> Al Gore made a movie about Global Warming, not Climate Change. How would you define those two terms?
- transcriptase 4y ago
  One is an observable phenomenon. The other gets grant money in perpetuity no matter what the data says.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deadbolt 4y ago
    I wasn't asking you, but okay.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Climate Change could include onset of an ice age?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    Russian Climate Scientists readily talk about ice age onsets. When I was in my youth, that was the buzz at the time. My, how the winds have changed.
evol262 4y ago
GWB rebranded it as Climate Change, not anybody else. Solar forcing is completely accounted for in the models, in all areas (albedo, bouncing in the galactic plane, distance from the Sun). The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. Climactic periods are not "measured" in any kind of arbitrary 3 decade cycle. Even if you want to pretend that they are, and we are returning to some kind of baseline (which every bit of science says we are not -- we are going to dramatically overshoot it), humanity did not evolve under those "historical norms". Our society and agriculture and population patterns did not emerge under those "historical norms". Returning to those "historical norms" will mean the largest population migration in human history, with a large amount of it from nuclear states which already have shooting skirmishes in their borderlands facing an existential crisis over water (India, Pakistan, China). Those "historical norms" are not necessarily compatible with civilization. Before you talk about how much farmland it is going to "open", ask yourself how well the supply chain did during COVID. Then ask yourself what will happen to it during a population migration. Ask yourself what happens when deep water ports at low sea level start having problems, and how we would get crude to refineries to get bitumen to even make asphalt to create infrastructure in the new "open" land, how we'd transport concrete and steel there if there are interruptions in the supply chain which impact diesel production. Ask yourself how long it will take to transform old-growth forest and granite-filled glacial retreat zones in Canada into arable land, how easily we'll be able to get chemical fertilizers, etc. Even if you want to talk about how this is some kind of "historical norm", the question ultimately becomes not "is this anthropogenic?" (it is, but it doesn't matter), but "how do we intend to survive this as a species?"

llanowarelves 4y ago

Giving cataclysmic predictions that don't happen, and quietly ignoring them when the year comes to replace it with the next cataclysmic prediction, is much like how some religious people say we're always either in or about to be in the End of Days. And is treated the same. Especially when malincentives like regulators lining their pockets are involved ("Carbon credits" can be like a type of religious indulgence). More measured approaches on shorter timescales -- actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people -- is taken more seriously.

yongjik 4y ago
> actually going after the big fish and not ignoring their excess because they are more "important" than the little people Is this yet another allusion on Al Gore and his infamous private jet? Last year, 506,769 airplanes either took off or landed in LAX only. That's 1388 per day in one airport. All packed to the gill by "little people" like you and me. Al Gore could fly his jet across the Pacific every day and it would be literally a drop in the bucket-full of little guys, in the grand scheme of things. I'm tired of these talks of "big guys ruining the environment," which is conveniently only brought up when these big guys talk about the environment. This is plain simple "hate the message, shoot the messenger" strategy.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  Cool, so I can morally use as much as I want because in the grand scheme of things I am just one person. You know what, I agree with that. Now I don't have to change my behavior for any of this stuff. I just needed to see myself as important as them. Thank you for this change in perspective. Now I can say a few words about the environment, while consuming as much as possible, and you'll have to defend me from critique. By "big fish" I actually meant companies (who are a prime shake-down target for carbon credits), but if for the rich, celebs, and politicians the shoe fits... They are supposed to have noblesse oblige.
  - ForHackernews 4y ago