3 ms·

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 disagree

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.
akomtu 3y ago
I've been a skeptic too. What changed my mind wasn't the charts or numbers that could be fudged to push an agenda, but satellite and documentary imagery that shows the decade over decade changes in various places on the planet. The short summary is it's turning to a reptile-friendly world rapidly: most mammals will have nowhere to live by the end of the century, plankton will die out and clouds with it. What will transport water from the oceans is a big mystery, luckily I won't be alive to see it. Reptiles and insects will multiply. And short of an unlrecedented economy-wrecking event, nothing will stop this slow motion crash. Humanity is still too infantile to solve such problems.
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  Nice sensationalism. Did you take into account the fact that more humans die from cold rather than hot temperatures? Clouds will die? Where are you getting your nonsense from? Plankton dying also makes no sense, and in fact, there are significantly more plants thanks to CO2. The only real problem with humanity is that the media can get humanity to jump off a cliff if they wanted to, or even with an honest mistake.
kmos17 3y ago
Evryone lives in their own bubble of self affirming facts these days, maybe in your view covid projections were far off, but in mine the projections that were the worst off were the ones saying this was just another type of flu, when in fact we ended up with over 1M dead just in the US. Same with climate, I see a very widely held consensus on climate by the scientific community, and so far the climate changes line up with the predictions. I’ve seen first hand extreme weather events on a scale we’ve never experienced in many places that are already having catastrophic consequences. Maybe proposed solutions are wrong, but not trying anything or just putting your head in the sand based on a belief rather than evidence is clearly far worse.

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.

akomtu 3y ago

I've been a skeptic too. What changed my mind wasn't the charts or numbers that could be fudged to push an agenda, but satellite and documentary imagery that shows the decade over decade changes in various places on the planet. The short summary is it's turning to a reptile-friendly world rapidly: most mammals will have nowhere to live by the end of the century, plankton will die out and clouds with it. What will transport water from the oceans is a big mystery, luckily I won't be alive to see it. Reptiles and insects will multiply. And short of an unlrecedented economy-wrecking event, nothing will stop this slow motion crash. Humanity is still too infantile to solve such problems.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago
Nice sensationalism. Did you take into account the fact that more humans die from cold rather than hot temperatures? Clouds will die? Where are you getting your nonsense from? Plankton dying also makes no sense, and in fact, there are significantly more plants thanks to CO2. The only real problem with humanity is that the media can get humanity to jump off a cliff if they wanted to, or even with an honest mistake.

kmos17 3y ago

Evryone lives in their own bubble of self affirming facts these days, maybe in your view covid projections were far off, but in mine the projections that were the worst off were the ones saying this was just another type of flu, when in fact we ended up with over 1M dead just in the US. Same with climate, I see a very widely held consensus on climate by the scientific community, and so far the climate changes line up with the predictions. I’ve seen first hand extreme weather events on a scale we’ve never experienced in many places that are already having catastrophic consequences. Maybe proposed solutions are wrong, but not trying anything or just putting your head in the sand based on a belief rather than evidence is clearly far worse.