4 ms·

We shouldn't be spewing bullshit like this... It's going to get worse, but trying to spin climate change as some apocalyptic event where we all die is just sil

We shouldn't be spewing bullshit like this... It's going to get worse, but trying to spin climate change as some apocalyptic event where we all die is just silly.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
> we all die is just silly. Not all then, just hundreds of millions of person. Phew!
runarberg 3y ago
I remember a time when this was phrased as an “inconvenient truth” or that “we can all do our part to make the world a better place”. Honestly I prefer the alarmist hyperbole. The truth is that a lot of us are going to die, more of us will have our lives uprooted. Keeping calm and pretending otherwise seems like a greater bullshit and I at least am not gonna take it. The world is worse, it is gonna be worse. Some rich folks and politicians are responsible. And I want them to feel bad about it. A point of comparison. The pandemic does seem like a walk in the park next to the climate catastrophe, I don't recall people warning about alarmist speech at the onset of it.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  When I was growing up in the 1980s everyone was convinced we would have a huge nuclear World War III and it would be the end of civilization, and that at best living under that threat was "the new normal." The same alarmist hyperbole was used. TV movies were made. Now it's hardly something anyone thinks about. And people were warning about the alarmist talk about COVID-19. They were just shouted down, for the most part, or canceled.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Surely you must see the difference between the hypothetical destruction of an all out nuclear war and the very real existing conditions of the climate emergency. But regardless, I love this analogy. Because the alarmist hyperbole actually worked. In the 1980s we had over 70,000 nuclear bombs. People called for disarmaments and we got several bilateral agreements on top of the existing non-proliferation treaty. Today we have just over 13,000 bombs. Not a total success, but a success nonetheless. (An aside. 92 countries have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, meaning alarmist rhetoric has convinced as many governments to totally eliminate this existential threat). Comparing this to climate actions is apt because this is what people are asking for and what climate scientists are recommending. International agreements comming to eliminate this threat. In 1997 (before Inconvenient Truth) such an agreement was signed with support from the Clinton administration, the congress, and the general public. However it failed to ratify because the senite had "concerns". Perhaps the rhetoric at the time wasn't alarmist enough. And some senators were allowed to serve the oil lobby and delay action for another 3 decades. As a result now we are all going to die!

We shouldn't be spewing bullshit like this... It's going to get worse, but trying to spin climate change as some apocalyptic event where we all die is just silly.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago

> we all die is just silly. Not all then, just hundreds of millions of person. Phew!

runarberg 3y ago

I remember a time when this was phrased as an “inconvenient truth” or that “we can all do our part to make the world a better place”. Honestly I prefer the alarmist hyperbole. The truth is that a lot of us are going to die, more of us will have our lives uprooted. Keeping calm and pretending otherwise seems like a greater bullshit and I at least am not gonna take it. The world is worse, it is gonna be worse. Some rich folks and politicians are responsible. And I want them to feel bad about it. A point of comparison. The pandemic does seem like a walk in the park next to the climate catastrophe, I don't recall people warning about alarmist speech at the onset of it.

SoftTalker 3y ago
When I was growing up in the 1980s everyone was convinced we would have a huge nuclear World War III and it would be the end of civilization, and that at best living under that threat was "the new normal." The same alarmist hyperbole was used. TV movies were made. Now it's hardly something anyone thinks about. And people were warning about the alarmist talk about COVID-19. They were just shouted down, for the most part, or canceled.
- runarberg 3y ago
  Surely you must see the difference between the hypothetical destruction of an all out nuclear war and the very real existing conditions of the climate emergency. But regardless, I love this analogy. Because the alarmist hyperbole actually worked. In the 1980s we had over 70,000 nuclear bombs. People called for disarmaments and we got several bilateral agreements on top of the existing non-proliferation treaty. Today we have just over 13,000 bombs. Not a total success, but a success nonetheless. (An aside. 92 countries have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, meaning alarmist rhetoric has convinced as many governments to totally eliminate this existential threat). Comparing this to climate actions is apt because this is what people are asking for and what climate scientists are recommending. International agreements comming to eliminate this threat. In 1997 (before Inconvenient Truth) such an agreement was signed with support from the Clinton administration, the congress, and the general public. However it failed to ratify because the senite had "concerns". Perhaps the rhetoric at the time wasn't alarmist enough. And some senators were allowed to serve the oil lobby and delay action for another 3 decades. As a result now we are all going to die!