3 ms·

This is not even close to the scientific consensus on climate change. It’s just as unscientific and counterproductive as the drivel repeated by climate denialis

This is not even close to the scientific consensus on climate change. It’s just as unscientific and counterproductive as the drivel repeated by climate denialists. Climate Doomerism is just another kind of denialism, in effect. But even if that were true, who says you can’t drive trains in a climate catastrophe? There’s a whole movie on the topic. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer

lelanthran 3y ago
TBH, I enjoyed the series more than I wanted to admit; plot holes galore, everyone carrying the stupid ball, but I enjoyed it
Roark66 3y ago
Exactly, at this stage the panic inducing "OMG we're all going to die/out children will live in MadMax world for sure" mental state should be added to the long list of dangers caused by the climate around the climate change. Right after the danger of knee-jerk deindustrialisation of the West and collapse of democracies in favor of autocracies. These countries (like China) not only double their greenhouse emissions for each tonne we limit, they also actively promote fear and panic amongst our populations that leads to the very deindustrialisation that will form the basis of their power over us. However, I remain optimistic, yes there is climate change, yes it will have a range of effects on people depending on where they live. From the lengthening of the growing season and all the positive outcomes, through minor inconvenience, to crop failures/lack of water and death of the others. Sadly, some of the poorest regions on the planet will be hit the worst and some of the most wealthy will reap the benefits. Without actual physical power over countries like China there is no stopping of climate change. The best we(democracies) can do is to retain as much power as possible to help as many people as possible during this time. Imagine scenario 1 where a climate change is slowed down by 1C over next 20 years at the cost of entire deindustrialisation of Europe, and it's subsequent subjugation to Russian-Chinese partnership. Then scenario 2 where we have 1C of extra warming now not in 20 years, but Europe remains free, wealthy and able to continue to help poorer countries, accept refugees etc. Which world is going to be a better one? I think people will choose option 2.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Without actual physical power over countries like China there is no stopping of climate change. But China is famously the big commodity supplier of the whole West. Why and how could the West (or just the US) shut all of that down even in the hypothetical of having complete control of China?
acdha 3y ago
> This is not even close to the scientific consensus on climate change. It’s just as unscientific and counterproductive as the drivel repeated by climate denialists. Nonsense: climate scientists have been making accurate predictions since the 1970s and, more importantly those have become more precise over time because their goal is to do scientific research and see where the results lead rather than starting from the precept “we can’t reduce profits for polluters” and working backwards. You can see the difference in how many different things deniers have latched onto over the years – each time we’re told that some minor gap completely disproves the entire field, and then when that’s debunked they move on to some other random point, very similar to creationists’ “god of the gaps” where it’s left with increasingly insignificant claims between multiple lines of robust argument and evidence.
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  The climate SCIENTISTS have been making accurate predictions, but the climate DOOMERS have not. The Doomers claims (like that someone’s nephew can only ever hope to be a climate refugee and nothing else) are not represented by the scientific consensus. And in fact, we’ll probably want train conductors if we’re going to improve public transportation to enable more density and electrified transport. That’s why Doomers are nearly as bad as the denialists: the unscientific vocal lack of hope means they’re not supporting the actual change we need. And sometimes they’ll shout down folks offering solutions.

lelanthran 3y ago

TBH, I enjoyed the series more than I wanted to admit; plot holes galore, everyone carrying the stupid ball, but I enjoyed it

Roark66 3y ago

Exactly, at this stage the panic inducing "OMG we're all going to die/out children will live in MadMax world for sure" mental state should be added to the long list of dangers caused by the climate around the climate change. Right after the danger of knee-jerk deindustrialisation of the West and collapse of democracies in favor of autocracies. These countries (like China) not only double their greenhouse emissions for each tonne we limit, they also actively promote fear and panic amongst our populations that leads to the very deindustrialisation that will form the basis of their power over us. However, I remain optimistic, yes there is climate change, yes it will have a range of effects on people depending on where they live. From the lengthening of the growing season and all the positive outcomes, through minor inconvenience, to crop failures/lack of water and death of the others. Sadly, some of the poorest regions on the planet will be hit the worst and some of the most wealthy will reap the benefits. Without actual physical power over countries like China there is no stopping of climate change. The best we(democracies) can do is to retain as much power as possible to help as many people as possible during this time. Imagine scenario 1 where a climate change is slowed down by 1C over next 20 years at the cost of entire deindustrialisation of Europe, and it's subsequent subjugation to Russian-Chinese partnership. Then scenario 2 where we have 1C of extra warming now not in 20 years, but Europe remains free, wealthy and able to continue to help poorer countries, accept refugees etc. Which world is going to be a better one? I think people will choose option 2.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Without actual physical power over countries like China there is no stopping of climate change. But China is famously the big commodity supplier of the whole West. Why and how could the West (or just the US) shut all of that down even in the hypothetical of having complete control of China?

acdha 3y ago

> This is not even close to the scientific consensus on climate change. It’s just as unscientific and counterproductive as the drivel repeated by climate denialists. Nonsense: climate scientists have been making accurate predictions since the 1970s and, more importantly those have become more precise over time because their goal is to do scientific research and see where the results lead rather than starting from the precept “we can’t reduce profits for polluters” and working backwards. You can see the difference in how many different things deniers have latched onto over the years – each time we’re told that some minor gap completely disproves the entire field, and then when that’s debunked they move on to some other random point, very similar to creationists’ “god of the gaps” where it’s left with increasingly insignificant claims between multiple lines of robust argument and evidence.

Robotbeat 3y ago
The climate SCIENTISTS have been making accurate predictions, but the climate DOOMERS have not. The Doomers claims (like that someone’s nephew can only ever hope to be a climate refugee and nothing else) are not represented by the scientific consensus. And in fact, we’ll probably want train conductors if we’re going to improve public transportation to enable more density and electrified transport. That’s why Doomers are nearly as bad as the denialists: the unscientific vocal lack of hope means they’re not supporting the actual change we need. And sometimes they’ll shout down folks offering solutions.