3 ms·
> But according to the IPCC models, [global warming is] also a very very slooooow problem. We shouldn't be complacent, but it's probably counter-productive to p
by lazerwalker 15y ago
> But according to the IPCC models, [global warming is] also a very very slooooow problem. We shouldn't be complacent, but it's probably counter-productive to panic.
Given the large number of people who voraciously deny the basic existence of global warming, I fear that a little bit of mass panic is just about the only thing that will actually get us to do anything about the problem.
- lotharbot 15y agoThere's some negative feedback associated with that strategy. One of the major reasons people voraciously deny (manmade) global warming is because they see so much irrationality coming from certain people trying to convince them of the problem. It comes across as dishonest and desperate, which is not really a good way to convince people. What we really need is calm, clear science being described by actual scientists (rather than politically controversial figures). We need clear delineation of risks and costs associated with mitigation strategies, not mass panic.
- tomjen3 15y agoWhen i see global warming i see a scientist looking for additional funding. I see politiciams wanting to levy taxes that will leave me poorer but not solve the problem (which i don't believe is as serious as it is generally assumed. People always seem to think the end is near) I see people unwilling to accept that our modern life depend on cheap energi and that if a bit of ice melt then we should accept that as a cost of doing business. What i don't see is people talking about cheap migration strategies, more neuclear plants, mirrors to reflect some of the sun back into space, etc, etc.