4 ms·

Well no, it's tautological that predictions made by alarmists are inaccurate. Otherwise they wouldn't be alarmists. Here's how various models made during the

Well no, it's tautological that predictions made by alarmists are inaccurate. Otherwise they wouldn't be alarmists. Here's how various models made during the 80s fared though: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... Not unreasonably badly really. On the other hand I haven't really seen evidence from what I've heard from various far-right figures of a sudden shift to global cooling, cessation of global warming, or any sort of dramatically lower rate of global warming than expected. Usually I see people cite what Al Gore said in an inconvenient truth being wrong, but the thing is there's actually quite a few models which weren't wrong so why wouldn't you believe those? If anything I've heard arguments shift from "global warming isn't happening" towards "peoples models of how climate change will impact the economy are wrong" and "it's easier to adapt to climate change than move away from fossil fuels" and "Doing things about climate change is pointless when $COUNTRY and $CORPORATION won't do anything" and recently "carbon pricing kills poor people through poverty today for a speculative benefit in the future". Maybe with a sprinkling of "The climate has always changed" (yes) and "Climate change - manmade?" (yes).

slashdev 4y ago
All of which amounts to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and saying don’t try to change me followed by a bunch of of neeeneer neeners. I kid, but I guess that is what’s at the root of it. A fear of change and wanting to believe it isn’t so, because then there’s no need for change. The whole attitude is foreign to me, because I believe in following the evidence wherever it takes me, no matter how frightening I find it. It would be easier if I could believe the comforting lie sometimes.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  I think you'll find that much of what you interpret as resistance to "climate change" is not so much resistance to the idea that it exists, or even that we should "do something" about it, but rather to the current approach where "doing something" involves grossly hypocritical billionaires and politicians distributing money to each other while lecturing everyone else on how to live and what they must sacrifice. There are yearly conferences where hundreds of private jets emit more Co2 into the world than the average person will in their lifetime. And the people attending these conferences step off their jet, drive in a motorcade of SUVs to the venue, and sign documents committing to disburse billions of taxpayer dollars to LLCs and corporations their friends will form before next year's conference when they'll do it all over again. They'll lament about the epidemic of science denialism afflicting the common folk, and then they'll get back on their jets and fly back to one of their multiple homes to continue hoarding and growing their obscene wealth. When you dismiss criticism of the status quo as "science denialism" or whatever perjorative is en vogue amongst your fellow saviors of "our democracy," you are serving the agenda of the biggest polluters on the planet, by looking the other way while they facilitate global corruption and forego any legitimate mitigation of the impending catastrophe you care so virtuously about preventing to stave off the existential threat so many of your fellow non-billionaires are too ignorant and science-denying to recognize.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    That billionaires are corrupt or hypocritical is certainly an indictment of those billionaires (and perhaps all billionaires; I'm open to the idea that that sort of wealth is inherently immoral), but I do not believe that it changes what I should do or what needs to be done globally to combat climate change.
  - antonvs 4y ago
    Don't use what billionaires do as an excuse not to act.
mikrotikker 4y ago
How do you answer the "Doing things about climate change is pointless when $COUNTRY and $CORPORATION won't do anything" tort?
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Mostly that we can start off with modest legislative measures targeting corporations which aren't really enough to stop climate change, but will at least establish a legislation precedent to allow for more expedient changes to the law if the political climate changes, prevent people in other areas from claiming that WE'RE the ones causing the problem and thus they cannot pass similar legislation, and which will have a minor impact on everyday people. Once every major player internationally is generally on board with the idea of such measures, we can look at ramping things up a bit, as much as is politically feasible anyways. Even if we can't stop climate change even slowing it should have a measurable benefit. I would also stress what climate change is going to mean and connect it to contemporary politics. Economic migration is for the most part a very controversial thing especially among the type of people also against reforms regarding limiting ghg emissions etc. Realistically some of this is ALREADY caused by climate change, but we're going to see a LOT more of it caused by climate change, so if people don't want it to happen in the first place and also want to plausibly convince the general electorate they have no ethical obligation to take in migrants, than doing something about climate change early is expedient. This is not just international migration it will also be national migration and yuppies fleeing coastal cities which will get much more expensive generally leading to scarcity and inflation. Climate change it likely is going to have a rather adverse effect on purchasing power, notably for food, and we're only seeing the beginnings of high food prices if not outright famine due to both production and distribution constraints. Due to these legions of practical issues, not only should people support such reforms, the political will for different countries to impose measures against powerful corporations will pick up steam.

slashdev 4y ago

All of which amounts to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and saying don’t try to change me followed by a bunch of of neeeneer neeners. I kid, but I guess that is what’s at the root of it. A fear of change and wanting to believe it isn’t so, because then there’s no need for change. The whole attitude is foreign to me, because I believe in following the evidence wherever it takes me, no matter how frightening I find it. It would be easier if I could believe the comforting lie sometimes.

TechBro8615 4y ago
I think you'll find that much of what you interpret as resistance to "climate change" is not so much resistance to the idea that it exists, or even that we should "do something" about it, but rather to the current approach where "doing something" involves grossly hypocritical billionaires and politicians distributing money to each other while lecturing everyone else on how to live and what they must sacrifice. There are yearly conferences where hundreds of private jets emit more Co2 into the world than the average person will in their lifetime. And the people attending these conferences step off their jet, drive in a motorcade of SUVs to the venue, and sign documents committing to disburse billions of taxpayer dollars to LLCs and corporations their friends will form before next year's conference when they'll do it all over again. They'll lament about the epidemic of science denialism afflicting the common folk, and then they'll get back on their jets and fly back to one of their multiple homes to continue hoarding and growing their obscene wealth. When you dismiss criticism of the status quo as "science denialism" or whatever perjorative is en vogue amongst your fellow saviors of "our democracy," you are serving the agenda of the biggest polluters on the planet, by looking the other way while they facilitate global corruption and forego any legitimate mitigation of the impending catastrophe you care so virtuously about preventing to stave off the existential threat so many of your fellow non-billionaires are too ignorant and science-denying to recognize.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  That billionaires are corrupt or hypocritical is certainly an indictment of those billionaires (and perhaps all billionaires; I'm open to the idea that that sort of wealth is inherently immoral), but I do not believe that it changes what I should do or what needs to be done globally to combat climate change.
- antonvs 4y ago
  Don't use what billionaires do as an excuse not to act.

mikrotikker 4y ago

How do you answer the "Doing things about climate change is pointless when $COUNTRY and $CORPORATION won't do anything" tort?

faeriechangling 4y ago
Mostly that we can start off with modest legislative measures targeting corporations which aren't really enough to stop climate change, but will at least establish a legislation precedent to allow for more expedient changes to the law if the political climate changes, prevent people in other areas from claiming that WE'RE the ones causing the problem and thus they cannot pass similar legislation, and which will have a minor impact on everyday people. Once every major player internationally is generally on board with the idea of such measures, we can look at ramping things up a bit, as much as is politically feasible anyways. Even if we can't stop climate change even slowing it should have a measurable benefit. I would also stress what climate change is going to mean and connect it to contemporary politics. Economic migration is for the most part a very controversial thing especially among the type of people also against reforms regarding limiting ghg emissions etc. Realistically some of this is ALREADY caused by climate change, but we're going to see a LOT more of it caused by climate change, so if people don't want it to happen in the first place and also want to plausibly convince the general electorate they have no ethical obligation to take in migrants, than doing something about climate change early is expedient. This is not just international migration it will also be national migration and yuppies fleeing coastal cities which will get much more expensive generally leading to scarcity and inflation. Climate change it likely is going to have a rather adverse effect on purchasing power, notably for food, and we're only seeing the beginnings of high food prices if not outright famine due to both production and distribution constraints. Due to these legions of practical issues, not only should people support such reforms, the political will for different countries to impose measures against powerful corporations will pick up steam.