5 ms·
It should be news everywhere each and every day until we do enough about it so it isn't any more IMHO
by jlengrand 3y ago
It should be news everywhere each and every day until we do enough about it so it isn't any more IMHO
- replygirl 3y agothe boy who cried wolf is about that
- _Microft 3y agoYou're mistaken there: "The boy who cried wolf" is about lying about there being a wolf while it isn't, not about speaking the truth but nobody wanting to listen. Edit: check for yourself if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
- jlengrand 3y agoI'm half wondering if commenter implies that the wolf doesn't exist indeed...
- hotpotamus 3y agoI didn't think about the inverse parable, but I suppose that's Cassandra (and I've heard the database name was also a playful jab at Oracle, since Cassandra herself was an oracle).
- saulpw 3y agoCassandra foresaw the future but nobody listened.
- replygirl 3y agoi think you misjudged this as a climate denialist comment. it's not. the boy who cried wolf was about someone stirring hysteria so much it desensitized people beyond the point of caring when the threat was actually existential. it's not a perfect analogy but basically we've been crying wolf for decades (focusing on the wrong things: denuclearization, air quality, ozone layer, full-electric cars; vs. energy density, dense land uses, hybrids, democratic economies, etc.) and now that the wolf is starting to eat us, crying more won't help
- pengaru 3y agoClimate change is such a slow-moving massive-scale issue of course there's going to be decades and decades of observational reporting on its myriad effects. The boy who cried wolf is about telling fibs ruining one's credibility, it's entirely different. Our news sources shouldn't suppress reporting slow-moving disasters just because humans have a short attention span.
- SirMaster 3y agoSo all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I think if you asked the average person about that they would not think they are very credible.
- pengaru 3y ago> So all the climate scientists in the 1980s who said that the sea levels would be a meter higher today did not ruin their credibility? I don't know what specific claims you're referring to. I was a child in the 1980s and you should provide citations when making such historical claims. For all I know these purported scientific predictions were qualified with murky probabilities. Publications having error bars +- 50 years, and we're just playing some kind of 40+ year game of telephone hearsay. But you are speaking as if sea levels went down since the 1980s which is obviously not the case.
- relativeMeans 3y ago[dead]
- SirMaster 3y agoAll the people decades ago saying that the sea levels would be way higher today certainly didn't help instill confidence in their prediction abilities however. One could see how that could be seen as crying wolf.
- ars 3y agoThat's a great way to make everyone ignore it. Calling it a "crisis" does the same thing, the first time you hear crisis you get worried, then you realize it's a very very slow moving thing and you start ignoring them. Being alarmist helps no one. Just be factual about it, it's not the news media's job to rile people up or get them to take some kind of action.
- jlengrand 3y agoIt has been the warmest day in the history since anyone starting measuring, and the summer days haven't started globally yet is a pretty factual way to put it in my book
- ars 3y agoI agree. But don't call it "Climate Crisis", that just sounds silly, and will make people ignore you (it's also not factual since a crisis is something that happens quickly). "Global Warming", or "Climate Change" work perfectly fine.
- Epa095 3y agoIt very much is a crisis. Merriam-webster is literally using "the environmental crisis" as an example of proper use of the word "crisis". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crisis https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crisis
- smolder 3y agoThere are mountains of people doing what you do and complaining about alarmism and fear mongering and chiding people for apocalyptic predictions any time this subject comes up. I think that's worse than unhelpful, and is a disservice to everyone that lives after us. People are sounding the alarms and making dire predictions because there is so far 0 indication that as a global society we can cooperate well enough to prevent serious and irreparable harm to Earth's ecosystems and a great deal of consequent human suffering. We just barely, as a species, managed to contain ourselves well enough to not blow up in a nuclear light show. Peace is a fragile stalemate, not a lack of desire to destroy each other. If you ask me, there's no hope of an adequate change of inertia to prevent unprecedented human suffering stemming from AGW, and that's in large part because people would rather ignore it and stay comfortable. Toning down the alarmism does nothing to fix that.
- poorbutdebtfree 3y agoThe effects of Global Warming should've been featured in sciency publications like Times Magazine at least three decades ago.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agohttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=time+magazine+1990s+global+warming https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=time+magazine+1990s+global...
- wizofaus 3y agoThe Guardian hears you: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/05/tuesday-was-worlds-hottest-day-on-record-breaking-mondays-record https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/05/tuesday-...