4 ms·

I get why some people are trying to stick to the 1.5C thing, but it’s the role of scientists to just give it to us straight. We rely on that. Additionally, I t

I get why some people are trying to stick to the 1.5C thing, but it’s the role of scientists to just give it to us straight. We rely on that. Additionally, I think it is actually better that they express the situation as-is (getting worse, faster) because the public isn’t going to change unless things are dire. There’s so much social and economic inertia that nothing is going to change until it absolutely has to. By voicing the reality that we’re going to shoot way past 1.5C, maybe that will start to raise more alarms.

SoftTalker 3y ago
> By voicing the reality that we’re going to shoot way past 1.5C, maybe that will start to raise more alarms. I don't think that's going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
esafak 3y ago
At the same time, you want to give hope otherwise paralysis sets in.
- paulmd 3y ago
  yes, and this is literally the "old lie" that TFA discusses. sure, you want to give people hope, but you shouldn't lie to them about what's coming simply to give them hope. "hope" can also be things like "let's keep it to 4C". how did we get to "hope" being defined solely by this 1.5C number? this also generally discounts the loss of hope people are going to feel when they realize they've been lied to, especially when you are demanding they make these huge sacrifices. We already saw the result of this approach during COVID - not only was nobody fooled by the "masks don't reduce transmission" but when scientists admitted this was false messaging primarily intended to massage people's behavior, it pretty well destroyed any rapport between the scientific community and the public. If you are someone who "does everything right" and stops eating meat, sorts your recycleables, and reduces the number of times you flush - how do you feel when the outcome is "lol, yeah, none of that is going to be enough, we know and knew that, but despite your sacrifice we're gonna blow way past that anyway because we didn't tackle any of the systemic issues around production or distribution"?
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Additionally, I think it is actually better that they express the situation as-is (getting worse, faster) because the public isn’t going to change unless things are dire. The public isn't going to change what?
- paulmd 3y ago
  its voting habits (let alone consumption/etc but I think that is a red-herring anyway, consumption or reductions in one area will be consumed in some other sector of the economy. capitalism basically routes around "inefficiency" just like the internet routes around its own damage, and consumers expressing non-optimal consumption preferences according to the laws of the society is "inefficiency" in this context. Stopping your beef consumption just makes it cheaper for someone else who will consume more, etc.) but anyway on voting habits: you still literally have states like florida that are going to be underwater within literal decades, that are getting hammered by climate change so badly that insurers have cranked their rates (followed by banning this, and then insurers pulling out entirely), and yet still are literal trump-voter swamps going massively red every cycle, even in statewide elections etc. it's literally not even an issue that people care about or will vote to fix, even though it's literally going to affect them personally before their children reach adulthood.
hotpotamus 3y ago
Both scientists in the article mention having children; I don't think they can face the realities themselves.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Meanwhile, I'm wondering whether it will be economically feasible to have another dog in ~4-8 years, after my current dog has died.

SoftTalker 3y ago

> By voicing the reality that we’re going to shoot way past 1.5C, maybe that will start to raise more alarms. I don't think that's going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

esafak 3y ago

At the same time, you want to give hope otherwise paralysis sets in.

paulmd 3y ago
yes, and this is literally the "old lie" that TFA discusses. sure, you want to give people hope, but you shouldn't lie to them about what's coming simply to give them hope. "hope" can also be things like "let's keep it to 4C". how did we get to "hope" being defined solely by this 1.5C number? this also generally discounts the loss of hope people are going to feel when they realize they've been lied to, especially when you are demanding they make these huge sacrifices. We already saw the result of this approach during COVID - not only was nobody fooled by the "masks don't reduce transmission" but when scientists admitted this was false messaging primarily intended to massage people's behavior, it pretty well destroyed any rapport between the scientific community and the public. If you are someone who "does everything right" and stops eating meat, sorts your recycleables, and reduces the number of times you flush - how do you feel when the outcome is "lol, yeah, none of that is going to be enough, we know and knew that, but despite your sacrifice we're gonna blow way past that anyway because we didn't tackle any of the systemic issues around production or distribution"?

avgcorrection 3y ago

> Additionally, I think it is actually better that they express the situation as-is (getting worse, faster) because the public isn’t going to change unless things are dire. The public isn't going to change what?

paulmd 3y ago
its voting habits (let alone consumption/etc but I think that is a red-herring anyway, consumption or reductions in one area will be consumed in some other sector of the economy. capitalism basically routes around "inefficiency" just like the internet routes around its own damage, and consumers expressing non-optimal consumption preferences according to the laws of the society is "inefficiency" in this context. Stopping your beef consumption just makes it cheaper for someone else who will consume more, etc.) but anyway on voting habits: you still literally have states like florida that are going to be underwater within literal decades, that are getting hammered by climate change so badly that insurers have cranked their rates (followed by banning this, and then insurers pulling out entirely), and yet still are literal trump-voter swamps going massively red every cycle, even in statewide elections etc. it's literally not even an issue that people care about or will vote to fix, even though it's literally going to affect them personally before their children reach adulthood.

hotpotamus 3y ago

Both scientists in the article mention having children; I don't think they can face the realities themselves.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Meanwhile, I'm wondering whether it will be economically feasible to have another dog in ~4-8 years, after my current dog has died.