7 ms·

Scientists start to discover that the Earth is warming "Maybe they're wrong." Scientists develop sophisticated models that show the dangers of global warming "

Scientists start to discover that the Earth is warming "Maybe they're wrong." Scientists develop sophisticated models that show the dangers of global warming "We'll deal with it before it becomes a problem." The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely time for gradual, market-based solutions to global warming."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JimtheCoder 3y ago
To be fair, blaming these wildfires on global warming when proper forest management techniques aren't being used and resources are being cut sort of contributes to this phenomenon...doesn't it?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  "things people got away with before" are now no longer optional.. as if the extra-safety cushions have been used up and are gone.. seems very predictable, and not either-or at all..
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  There is aloooot of forest in Canada. You can properly manage some of it near populated places, but it is simply infeasible to directly or indirectly manage even most of it.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    The Cascades didn't always consist of endless acres of Douglas Fir and sword ferns. As the glaciers receded, the indigenous tribes and the natural fire ecology maintained oak savanna where there is now dense forest and fuel buildup. I agree with your point, but just wanted to point out that the land was manageable before we allowed most of it to turn into forest.
- beej71 3y ago
  This is fair, where there are historically poorly managed forests. But a lot of socal that burns isn't forest at all, for example. Same in Eastern Oregon. Or Santa Rosa.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Orchards and the like need to be managed. Forests shouldn't really. It's a mistake to think the entire planet needs to be treated like a private garden/agricultural resource. While forest management can help by reducing the amount of bush etc., it can't mitigate the large scale effect of vegetation simply drying out. This 'forest management' concept doesn't include watering the trees, after all. I'm a little sour on this term because it acts (consciously or unconsciously) to deflect from the actual problem of large-scale desiccation. Every time I hear it makes me think of someone saying 'Mars never has forest fires, because the vegetation has been cleared properly.'
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    > Forests shouldn't really Forests naturally burn. In California (at least) trees have features specifically evolved to fit into an environment with periodic natural fires. There are written reports of fires in North America going back many hundreds of years, and I believe the natives experienced fires before that as well, as evidenced by cultural practices and oral history. So you can either not manage the forests and avoid building into areas that would be affected by natural fires, or you can build into those areas but you do need to manage the forests. Where do you get the idea that forests don’t need to be managed if we are to live in and around them? It seems like magical thinking to me. Note that this is orthogonal to the effect a warming earth has on severity. Qualitatively, you needed to manage forests in North America 1,000 years ago, and you still need to manage them today.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      So you can either not manage the forests and avoid building into areas that would be affected by natural fires Yes, this is what I have in mind. If you want to live in a forest you need to assume you'll be on your own in the case of natural disasters and have some survival/escape plan. Building into/exploiting all available primeval land seems like a Bad Thing to me.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > it can't mitigate the large scale effect of vegetation simply drying out. it goes well beyond that, the bark beetles have killed a lot of pine trees, which is just standing dead timber. now dry that out and you have dead forests full of kindling.
- teunispeters 3y ago
  A large portion of BC is completely inaccessible by any means - which doesn't help. Lots of huge mountain ranges! But the problem turns out to be climate change, oil usage and the BC Conservatives deciding that the pine beetle could be stopped by normal winters (after "normal" winters were already fading ... but this is hindsight ...). Ok they were called the "BC liberal party" but they were a hard-right conservative party and still are ... but I'm not sure if the large-scale pine beetle caused dead forests are still a factor... my last trip through one of the areas currently on fire (a couple of weeks ago) - I didn't see the characteristic red/dead pine trees that time and while I'm just an inhabitant, I was looking. (Banff through Kelowna area to Vancouver, as my usual Kamloops route was already being evacuated in parts then).
pensatoio 3y ago
less "global warming" more "poor forest management"
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Huh? It’s more like: The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely happening, but it’s too late to do anything about it, so let’s just live it up until extinction."
- matteoraso 3y ago
  I hate that you're right.
- notatoad 3y ago
  >The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely happening" seems like there's still plenty of denial to go around
  - channel_t 3y ago
    From my own anecdotal observations, it sure seems like that the worse it gets the more mainstream denialism becomes. I'm also seeing a rise of cartoonishly absurd conspiracy theories that look loosely something like: "the commie democrats are using secret weather machines to push their radical agenda!" Not sure how we're supposed to fix any of this in our lifetimes when reality itself is so easily trampled by culture war nonsense.
- jl6 3y ago
  This is why climate doomers are harmful. Of course apathy is the response to being told there’s no hope.
  - smolder 3y ago
    Apathy was the starting condition, not a result of people fretting about climate change.
systemvoltage 3y ago
Does anyone not see that everything gets blamed on climate change wholesale?
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - macintux 3y ago
    > For example, the Canadian politicians who focus the most on that subject, and who impose onerous "carbon taxes" on everyone, spend a lot of time in planes flying all over the country, and even overseas. Most of this travel is unnecessary and pointless. Do you have data indicating that the politicians who don’t focus on the subject are more modest with their travel?
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      "Do you have data indicating that the politicians who don’t focus on the subject are more modest with their travel?" Why would they be if they don't care as much...?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        But it’s being asserted that both sides don’t genuinely care; that they care equally as much.
    - iFire 3y ago
      Good scientific observation. To make a comparison that Canadian politicians who impose taxes jet travel more are harming the environment more, we need a comparison between controlled variable and the tested variable like the amount of jet travel Canadian politicians who don't impose taxes do.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      The point is, if they honestly believed in climate change, their actions would reflect a state of emergency. Instead, they act as if nothing is wrong, except when it comes time to impose limits on others, and then they remember it's all justified by the need to save the planet. So comparing to other politicians is pointless, it's their actions in relation to their policies that is at issue, not how it compares to other politicians.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> Scientists develop sophisticated models that show the dangers of global warming Scientists treat their jobs as sinecure, benefit from unpublished data and closed-source code while receiving public funding Nothing to see here, people, get that Believe Science t-shirt and move on. > The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely time for gradual, market-based solutions to global warming." I guess you disagree with economists who won the most prestigious award in their field and who also build sophisticated models? Pick your own dismal science to root for! Being a science believer have never been so exciting, now you can treat it like football or politics!
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  By calling econ "dismal science", adherents exaggerate; The "dismal's" fine, it's "science" where they patently prevaricate. ;)
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    Right? If economics isn’t even a science, what does it make climatology?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JimtheCoder 3y ago

To be fair, blaming these wildfires on global warming when proper forest management techniques aren't being used and resources are being cut sort of contributes to this phenomenon...doesn't it?

mistrial9 3y ago
"things people got away with before" are now no longer optional.. as if the extra-safety cushions have been used up and are gone.. seems very predictable, and not either-or at all..
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
There is aloooot of forest in Canada. You can properly manage some of it near populated places, but it is simply infeasible to directly or indirectly manage even most of it.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  The Cascades didn't always consist of endless acres of Douglas Fir and sword ferns. As the glaciers receded, the indigenous tribes and the natural fire ecology maintained oak savanna where there is now dense forest and fuel buildup. I agree with your point, but just wanted to point out that the land was manageable before we allowed most of it to turn into forest.
beej71 3y ago
This is fair, where there are historically poorly managed forests. But a lot of socal that burns isn't forest at all, for example. Same in Eastern Oregon. Or Santa Rosa.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Orchards and the like need to be managed. Forests shouldn't really. It's a mistake to think the entire planet needs to be treated like a private garden/agricultural resource. While forest management can help by reducing the amount of bush etc., it can't mitigate the large scale effect of vegetation simply drying out. This 'forest management' concept doesn't include watering the trees, after all. I'm a little sour on this term because it acts (consciously or unconsciously) to deflect from the actual problem of large-scale desiccation. Every time I hear it makes me think of someone saying 'Mars never has forest fires, because the vegetation has been cleared properly.'
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  > Forests shouldn't really Forests naturally burn. In California (at least) trees have features specifically evolved to fit into an environment with periodic natural fires. There are written reports of fires in North America going back many hundreds of years, and I believe the natives experienced fires before that as well, as evidenced by cultural practices and oral history. So you can either not manage the forests and avoid building into areas that would be affected by natural fires, or you can build into those areas but you do need to manage the forests. Where do you get the idea that forests don’t need to be managed if we are to live in and around them? It seems like magical thinking to me. Note that this is orthogonal to the effect a warming earth has on severity. Qualitatively, you needed to manage forests in North America 1,000 years ago, and you still need to manage them today.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    So you can either not manage the forests and avoid building into areas that would be affected by natural fires Yes, this is what I have in mind. If you want to live in a forest you need to assume you'll be on your own in the case of natural disasters and have some survival/escape plan. Building into/exploiting all available primeval land seems like a Bad Thing to me.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > it can't mitigate the large scale effect of vegetation simply drying out. it goes well beyond that, the bark beetles have killed a lot of pine trees, which is just standing dead timber. now dry that out and you have dead forests full of kindling.
teunispeters 3y ago
A large portion of BC is completely inaccessible by any means - which doesn't help. Lots of huge mountain ranges! But the problem turns out to be climate change, oil usage and the BC Conservatives deciding that the pine beetle could be stopped by normal winters (after "normal" winters were already fading ... but this is hindsight ...). Ok they were called the "BC liberal party" but they were a hard-right conservative party and still are ... but I'm not sure if the large-scale pine beetle caused dead forests are still a factor... my last trip through one of the areas currently on fire (a couple of weeks ago) - I didn't see the characteristic red/dead pine trees that time and while I'm just an inhabitant, I was looking. (Banff through Kelowna area to Vancouver, as my usual Kamloops route was already being evacuated in parts then).

pensatoio 3y ago

less "global warming" more "poor forest management"

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Huh? It’s more like: The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely happening, but it’s too late to do anything about it, so let’s just live it up until extinction."

matteoraso 3y ago
I hate that you're right.
notatoad 3y ago
>The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely happening" seems like there's still plenty of denial to go around
- channel_t 3y ago
  From my own anecdotal observations, it sure seems like that the worse it gets the more mainstream denialism becomes. I'm also seeing a rise of cartoonishly absurd conspiracy theories that look loosely something like: "the commie democrats are using secret weather machines to push their radical agenda!" Not sure how we're supposed to fix any of this in our lifetimes when reality itself is so easily trampled by culture war nonsense.
jl6 3y ago
This is why climate doomers are harmful. Of course apathy is the response to being told there’s no hope.
- smolder 3y ago
  Apathy was the starting condition, not a result of people fretting about climate change.

systemvoltage 3y ago

Does anyone not see that everything gets blamed on climate change wholesale?

VancouverMan 3y ago
[flagged]
- macintux 3y ago
  > For example, the Canadian politicians who focus the most on that subject, and who impose onerous "carbon taxes" on everyone, spend a lot of time in planes flying all over the country, and even overseas. Most of this travel is unnecessary and pointless. Do you have data indicating that the politicians who don’t focus on the subject are more modest with their travel?
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    "Do you have data indicating that the politicians who don’t focus on the subject are more modest with their travel?" Why would they be if they don't care as much...?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      But it’s being asserted that both sides don’t genuinely care; that they care equally as much.
  - iFire 3y ago
    Good scientific observation. To make a comparison that Canadian politicians who impose taxes jet travel more are harming the environment more, we need a comparison between controlled variable and the tested variable like the amount of jet travel Canadian politicians who don't impose taxes do.
  - ta8645 3y ago
    The point is, if they honestly believed in climate change, their actions would reflect a state of emergency. Instead, they act as if nothing is wrong, except when it comes time to impose limits on others, and then they remember it's all justified by the need to save the planet. So comparing to other politicians is pointless, it's their actions in relation to their policies that is at issue, not how it compares to other politicians.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> Scientists develop sophisticated models that show the dangers of global warming Scientists treat their jobs as sinecure, benefit from unpublished data and closed-source code while receiving public funding Nothing to see here, people, get that Believe Science t-shirt and move on. > The catastrophic consequences are now being felt on a regular basis "Okay, it's definitely time for gradual, market-based solutions to global warming." I guess you disagree with economists who won the most prestigious award in their field and who also build sophisticated models? Pick your own dismal science to root for! Being a science believer have never been so exciting, now you can treat it like football or politics!

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
By calling econ "dismal science", adherents exaggerate; The "dismal's" fine, it's "science" where they patently prevaricate. ;)
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  Right? If economics isn’t even a science, what does it make climatology?