3 ms·

I can't believe how much denial is still in every climate change internet thread I see. People will pull out one paper or one interesting theory and act like th

I can't believe how much denial is still in every climate change internet thread I see. People will pull out one paper or one interesting theory and act like that totally negates the enormous majority of conservative scientific literature, going back decades, telling us its literally an ongoing disaster. And possibly a very large disaster if something trips. And its not an acceptable amount of internet noise... It feels like 30-40%. And it seems much higher than the past.

tenpies 3y ago
I think there's three reasons: 1. Anyone old enough, remembers that Florida and New York are suppose to be under water now. Going outside should be hazardous, requiring that I cover every inch of my body or be instantly burned by the sun. My incredibly "green" 5th grade teacher told me that by about 20 years ago, water would be so scarce that we would all wash our bodies with wash cloths instead of showers. 2. It's undeniable that there is a natural component to climate change. You literally would have to be anti-science to ignore what we know about climate change throughout the planet's history, and even just within the Holocene.[1] You'd have to be a science denialist to ignore the non-human factors of climate change: solar acvitiy (which we cannot model), volcanic eruption (which we cannot stop), and sometimes we aren't even sure what caused drastic climate changes. 3. Climate change is the only constant. We know that even if there are no human emissions the climate does change drastically from little ice ages, to warming periods, all within a single human lifespan. Our current focus seems to be in denial of this. Instead of accepting that this is a natural process that we must prepare for, we seem to be hyper-focused on what can be described as real-time terraforming. What I've had most luck with is being more accurate. Instead of "humans are causing climate change", use "climate change is a natural process, but human activity seems to be destabilizing it and making it more extreme". Don't use average temperature like this article did, because most people think a constant +2 degrees year-round. It's all about volatility: a winter that's 10 degrees colder, followed by a summer that's 14 degrees warmer. From then though, it becomes a bit harder because you're in the policy side of things. The UN SDG and WEF are honestly not helping anyone with their messaging. The focus should be on things like building resilient food supply chains so that food can be plentiful an affordable, even when natural disasters hit. Everyone would be in favour of that. Instead we get a moronic "Meat will be a special treat", and by the way "you will own nothing and be happy".[2] Good luck with anyone but a Davos Elite being on board for that. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history#Holocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_... [2] https://twitter.com/wef/status/983378870819794945 https://twitter.com/wef/status/983378870819794945
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Yeah, I buy all of that. And English is not doing us any favors here, with the current/historical terms not really conveything "human induced societally disruptive extreme climate dynamism." All the handwaving when talking about tipping points is awfully suspicious too, given that history. I wouldn't say those are the three reasons though. Lots of comments seem to be from young people, and don't make it to the point of discussing Earth’s meteorological history.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
I can't believe how much people are still using manipulative linguistic constructions like the word "denial" as they presume to know the reason for the disagreements are just emotional shortfalls. The so called literature tells nothing about a disaster. It tells us there are climate models, these are incredibly chaotic things, their fluctuations several order of magnitudes larger than a supposed trend averaged over many runs. Now you're extrapolating these trends to project a disaster but there are many leaps in that logic. By the way, the same is true for sea levels. The daily fluctuations of tides are order of magnitude of meters and the sea level rises projected are centimeters over decades. We're living with naturally higher fluctuations than the worst case projections. And that's ignoring all the question marks all over the place about the accuracy of these projections, and the fact the supposed cure is several times worst than the disease. Apropos disease, look at the scientific consensus around COVID. The disaster projections were extremely far off.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  Would you prefer denial of the denial? I only know what I learn from the media, so as far as I know, you could be right. But is there not a consensus from the scientists, the people in the best position to know? Does CO2 not come from combusting fossil fuels, remain in the atmosphere for long periods, and retain heat? But this is an issue - whether in denial or in reasonable doubt, many are unconvinced.
  - slily 3y ago
    I'm in no way an expert, but I've heard from several climate researchers that the current consensus is manufactured to some degree, in that they face severe hurdles trying to publish papers that refute or contradict pessimistic predictions. Funding is also reportedly heavily biased, which isn't too surprising considering the financial incentives. So while I don't doubt that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, I am now suspicious of alarmist headlines and predictions. To my knowledge, climate models used to predict the impact of emissions are still fairly low-resolution (because climate is much more complex than is possible to model currently) and don't have a good track record for long-term predictions, and indeed, historically, plenty of apocalyptic predictions have failed to materialize. So while stories like this one are interesting, I would not trust them to determine immediate policy, and in the very short term I am more concerned about governments destroying their countries over arbitrary environmental goals based on incomplete models than about climate change itself. Investing in sustainable energy is great, but I have serious doubts about "tipping point" theories that encourage radical policies at the expense of poor people and the middle class.

tenpies 3y ago

I think there's three reasons: 1. Anyone old enough, remembers that Florida and New York are suppose to be under water now. Going outside should be hazardous, requiring that I cover every inch of my body or be instantly burned by the sun. My incredibly "green" 5th grade teacher told me that by about 20 years ago, water would be so scarce that we would all wash our bodies with wash cloths instead of showers. 2. It's undeniable that there is a natural component to climate change. You literally would have to be anti-science to ignore what we know about climate change throughout the planet's history, and even just within the Holocene.[1] You'd have to be a science denialist to ignore the non-human factors of climate change: solar acvitiy (which we cannot model), volcanic eruption (which we cannot stop), and sometimes we aren't even sure what caused drastic climate changes. 3. Climate change is the only constant. We know that even if there are no human emissions the climate does change drastically from little ice ages, to warming periods, all within a single human lifespan. Our current focus seems to be in denial of this. Instead of accepting that this is a natural process that we must prepare for, we seem to be hyper-focused on what can be described as real-time terraforming. What I've had most luck with is being more accurate. Instead of "humans are causing climate change", use "climate change is a natural process, but human activity seems to be destabilizing it and making it more extreme". Don't use average temperature like this article did, because most people think a constant +2 degrees year-round. It's all about volatility: a winter that's 10 degrees colder, followed by a summer that's 14 degrees warmer. From then though, it becomes a bit harder because you're in the policy side of things. The UN SDG and WEF are honestly not helping anyone with their messaging. The focus should be on things like building resilient food supply chains so that food can be plentiful an affordable, even when natural disasters hit. Everyone would be in favour of that. Instead we get a moronic "Meat will be a special treat", and by the way "you will own nothing and be happy".[2] Good luck with anyone but a Davos Elite being on board for that. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history#Holocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_... [2] https://twitter.com/wef/status/983378870819794945 https://twitter.com/wef/status/983378870819794945

brucethemoose2 3y ago
Yeah, I buy all of that. And English is not doing us any favors here, with the current/historical terms not really conveything "human induced societally disruptive extreme climate dynamism." All the handwaving when talking about tipping points is awfully suspicious too, given that history. I wouldn't say those are the three reasons though. Lots of comments seem to be from young people, and don't make it to the point of discussing Earth’s meteorological history.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

I can't believe how much people are still using manipulative linguistic constructions like the word "denial" as they presume to know the reason for the disagreements are just emotional shortfalls. The so called literature tells nothing about a disaster. It tells us there are climate models, these are incredibly chaotic things, their fluctuations several order of magnitudes larger than a supposed trend averaged over many runs. Now you're extrapolating these trends to project a disaster but there are many leaps in that logic. By the way, the same is true for sea levels. The daily fluctuations of tides are order of magnitude of meters and the sea level rises projected are centimeters over decades. We're living with naturally higher fluctuations than the worst case projections. And that's ignoring all the question marks all over the place about the accuracy of these projections, and the fact the supposed cure is several times worst than the disease. Apropos disease, look at the scientific consensus around COVID. The disaster projections were extremely far off.

ttonkytonk 3y ago
Would you prefer denial of the denial? I only know what I learn from the media, so as far as I know, you could be right. But is there not a consensus from the scientists, the people in the best position to know? Does CO2 not come from combusting fossil fuels, remain in the atmosphere for long periods, and retain heat? But this is an issue - whether in denial or in reasonable doubt, many are unconvinced.
- slily 3y ago
  I'm in no way an expert, but I've heard from several climate researchers that the current consensus is manufactured to some degree, in that they face severe hurdles trying to publish papers that refute or contradict pessimistic predictions. Funding is also reportedly heavily biased, which isn't too surprising considering the financial incentives. So while I don't doubt that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, I am now suspicious of alarmist headlines and predictions. To my knowledge, climate models used to predict the impact of emissions are still fairly low-resolution (because climate is much more complex than is possible to model currently) and don't have a good track record for long-term predictions, and indeed, historically, plenty of apocalyptic predictions have failed to materialize. So while stories like this one are interesting, I would not trust them to determine immediate policy, and in the very short term I am more concerned about governments destroying their countries over arbitrary environmental goals based on incomplete models than about climate change itself. Investing in sustainable energy is great, but I have serious doubts about "tipping point" theories that encourage radical policies at the expense of poor people and the middle class.