7 ms·

> “We were actively told if we start to talk about solutions, if we start to talk about the policy implications of our work, we will have abandoned our supposed

> “We were actively told if we start to talk about solutions, if we start to talk about the policy implications of our work, we will have abandoned our supposed ‘scientific neutrality,’” Gill said. “And then people will not trust us anymore on the science.” This is basically correct, and it is the thing that every climate activist does not seem to understand. When you start treating your favored issue in moralistic terms, and insisting that it's an emergency that must be acted upon now, then you have entered into the realm of political economy. You're now making a statement that the issue you're advocating for is more important than other issues, and people take umbrage with that. It may seem obvious at first glance that if we're careening towards 1.5C with myriad and unknown feedback loops that might lead to ecological disaster, we should stop emitting carbon, and pretty quickly. We only have six years. Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. You might complain and say, my goodness, we've had fifty years to be reducing these things, of course we can switch to sustainable energy and materials. But we didn't. So now we have to decide what's most important, and if it's your position that the most important thing right now is to stop emitting carbon -- or even by half, within six years -- then your position is utterly insane and divorced from reality, because yes, many people will die as a direct result. And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," then people might get upset with you.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Huge numbers of people are going to die regardless at this point, we’re simply arguing the mechanisms by which the outcome is arrived at. We waited too long to make meaningful changes to positively impact carbon trajectory and planetary boundaries [1], everyone lived on proverbial credit (draining resources faster than sustainable), and everyone is unhappy the bill came due that sophisticated participants knew would come. Oh well (not glib, just a realist). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38065125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38065125 (citations)
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > Huge numbers of people are going to die regardless at this point It would already be happening and we would have noticed.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c... | https://archive.ph/S07av https://archive.ph/S07av https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-related-deaths https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement---climate-change-is-already-killing-us--but-strong-action-now-can-prevent-more-deaths https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement---... https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897 https://www.v-20.org/new-health-data-shows-unabated-climate-change-will-cause-3.4-million-deaths-per-year-by-century-end https://www.v-20.org/new-health-data-shows-unabated-climate-... I am not worried if you don't believe. It doesn't matter if you do. Doesn't matter if I do for that matter. It only matters if people who have big levers do.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      I remember when I found out millions die every year from air pollution, including in my own rich 'clean' country where there are no visible smog issues. I still can't believe this isn't common knowledge. It seems to be stuck because it's not new enough to make the news that people watch/read, abstract enough (like dying from smoking-induced diseases) that it's hard to find eyeball-drawing examples, and inactionable (as an individual) in similar ways to global warming so you'd just feel powerless anyway. But collectively we ought to know these things to make good policy decisions :/ It was also hard to believe at first because, if it were so bad, surely someone would have done something. Alas, it's just not sufficiently in the public's, and thus policymakers', perception.
Aachen 3y ago
What would you expect astronomers to do if there's a building-sized asteroid headed for Earth in 40 years and the response so far has been to build a handful of bunkers and now there's 6 years left to build the complicated spaceship that needs to save the remaining millions living in the region where it's going to hit? I understand the idiology of science existing in a abstract realm detached from reality and politics, but also, I can't fault them from feeling the heat under their feet. Climate change is not existential for us, but it's gonna suck and can be entirely prevented if you can only somehow get through to people > And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," then people might get upset with you. People got upset with Nelson Mandela also, enough to lock him up for 27 years. I wonder if he'd say today he'd rather not have made people upset to help solve a big problem
- AnonC 3y ago
  On the asteroid question, you don’t have to wonder. Watching the satirical movie “Don’t Look Up” from 2021 [1] is enough commentary about humanity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up
- prewett 3y ago
  > [climate change] can be entirely prevented ... People need to accept that this statement is just incorrect. We cannot stop it in the near future. Even if we had the means of producing non-CO2 energy in quantities enough to provide all our energy needs today (that is, net-zero CO2 today), what we've already added will still continue to add heat. We do not have the facilities to produce bio-jet fuel in industrial quantities at inexpensive prices. It's going to take years to convert the elect grid to wind and solar, and that's even when people want to do it because it's cheaper. We need some way to replace all the fossil fuel used in agriculture, somehow make concrete net-zero, efficiently create steel without CO2. Ain't happening any time soon, even everyone wanted it. > ... if you can only somehow get through to people Actually, a large number of people have actually decided. They want to ignore it. It's not the choice you want, and I don't think it's a responsible or wise choice, but if you want to actually solve the problem, you need to deal with that reality. Just saying "well, if we could only pass a law and force people..." is foolish (which is the next step after "getting through to people" doesn't work because they already made their choice). If you want to solve the problem, make people want to do it of their own free will. For instance, make it cheaper to be net-zero CO2 than to burn it. Make it cheaper to take out CO2 from the atmosphere than to burn it. Make it so much cheaper to use less than people want to use less. Unfortunately, there are some hard problems from a chemistry standpoint here.
lproven 3y ago
I think this response is wrong-headed on multiple counts. It is emotional rhetoric, pretending to be a reasoned argument. > This is basically correct Why is it correct? Says who? > and it is the thing that every climate activist does not seem to understand. I think it is you that does not understand how and why people are reacting. > then you have entered into the realm of political economy. False assertion. "You like having an economy: in general, having money and trade. If you do not do these things, nobody will have money." ... is not a political statement. To say it is, is to say that a statement such as: "Watch out, there's a car coming!" ... is a manifesto about transport issues. > Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. That sounds largely correct. But then: > It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. Yes, it is. Stopping personal ICE vehicle transport, stopping non-essential flights, stopping all meat eating, stop using all petrochemicals... That does not spell doom for billions. Yours is the emotional exaggeration here. > if it's your position that the most important thing right now is to stop emitting carbon [...] then your position is utterly insane This is a standard, if very strange to me, right-wing political tactic: take what you are doing, accuse your opponents of doing it, then mock it. It is, in a word, BS. It is crude appeal to emotion, and it is lying. An honest response would be "we have left it too late and so now billions will die". But you are being nothing but dishonest, while role-playing some kind of square-jawed straight-talker or something. It is too late. The only question now is how bad it will be and if the blows can be softened. If you're too busy for more than 3min of reading, read this: https://www.okdoomer.io/10-reasons-our-civilization-will-soon-collapse/ https://www.okdoomer.io/10-reasons-our-civilization-will-soo... If you've got an hour, read this: https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to... Both well cited, both lacking rhetoric, both taking a cold hard look at where we stand. While your are trying to mock your perceived opponents by misstating what they are saying and doing, and you should be ashamed.
- soupfordummies 3y ago
  >> "Climate change will cause agricultural failure and subsequent collapse of hyperfragile modern civilization, likely within 10–15 years. By 2050 total human population will likely be under 2 billion. Humans, along with most other animals, will go extinct before the end of this century. These impacts are locked in and cannot be averted." If you truly believe that then why are you wasting time on HN?
huijzer 3y ago
> Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. I think there is a lot possible still. People would not die from smaller cars, less travelling, and smaller houses. Until the 1960s, people almost never took an airplane. Airlines sold the idea that 2 to 3 long distance vacations per year are necessary for mental health.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  Smaller houses would be very helpful for several generations of would-be homeowners. Most people do not want a McMansion as a "starter house" nor can they afford it, but that's typically what's available.
lamontcg 3y ago
> Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. Literally nobody is suggesting we do that. That's one of the dumbest strawman arguments I've read recently. We've basically done nothing so far, and we're all out of ideas. We could instead do things like just reverse the tax cuts for SUVs and Trucks and apply taxes on top of them and phase out the "light truck" CAFE standards. And fewer pedestrians might die from overweight vehicles.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  The problem with climate change is that no one understands the staggering scale of what has to happen to address it. > Literally nobody is suggesting we do that. Okay, well what are we suggesting? Do we want to stay within the 1.5C warming target? * If we banned all global commercial aviation tomorrow (~750Mt), we would save 4.5 Gt over 6 years, delaying our lock-in date by about 5 weeks. * If we banned all global passenger vehicles tomorrow (~5Gt), about 30Gt over 6 years, we delay the date by ~9 months. I'm sorry, but if no one is suggesting we do these things, why is so much ink spilled over the 1.5C warming carbon budget? If you don't want to breach it, we _have_ to do these things, there is no other choice. You can't just tweak US CAFE standards a little bit. Even if you immediately ban every single car and truck on the road on the entire planet, you're nowhere even remotely close to where you need to be to prevent 1.5C warming. If you ban all cars globally, all trucks, all global commercial aviation, if you immaculately create 50 billion carbon-free solar panels to provide free and green solar renewable energy for every single residential household on the planet, you've still only delayed things by a couple years. Fertilizer is about 2.6Gt annually, 15.6Gt over six years. Are we going to keep that? What are you suggesting we should do? And this is exactly what the point of my comment is all about. Things like the linked article in this story are designed to allow people to moralize about climate change without affirmatively supporting a particular policy choice. It's just a club to beat people over the head with, without actually describing what the solution is. It gives people the idea that we _could_ meet these targets if we wanted to, maybe with some minor changes, some cost that someone else could absorb. But we can't. The only way we could meet the 1.5C warming target is with massive, drastic changes to the lives of all of us, changes so large that our lives would be unrecognizable, and indeed, enormous numbers would die.
glenstein 3y ago
Where to even start. I think I would start first by noting the huge problem with your choice to label a climate catastrophe as someone's "favorite" issue. To my mind this is a manner of playing games with words that's immediately self-disqualifying. I imagine that a climate scientist's favorite thing, their actual favorite thing, depending on the person, might be experiences with friends and family, their favorite books, their comfort at home. A favorite "political issue" could have connotations of being some curious side hobby that absorbs a person's time, like a guilty pleasure for which they might make apologies for their interest, like being into trains in public transportation, or nerding out over Federal reserve policy. If someone is a climate scientist, and reviews a bunch of models and research showing catastrophic consequences for the planet, and wants to communicate about that, labeling that as a "favorite view" is a representation that misses 99% of what's important about why a person is motivated to communicate about it, because nothing about it has to do with the selection of a personal interest or the satisfaction of becoming immersed in it. So it's not a description that passes a step zero sanity check. Next is the notion that by communicating about this they have inappropriately crossed lines from science into politics. I think talking this way repeats something that I believe is a pretty fundamental confusion regarding the fact value distinction. And without getting into a long version of it, I think Hillary Putnam is a pretty excellent philosopher on the specific question, and on the ways that people use the fact value distinction to attempt to insulate policy from being informed by facts in ways that allow people to be more deeply harmed. But no, the state of the Earth and the environment in the choices we make about it are all already intrinsically political, in the sense that there's something important at stake where we have to collectively weigh what choices we want to make, and this is not a case of a frivolous one that's a mere indulgence. There is no pre-existing state of nature that has become newly violated by climate scientists sounding the alarm. We can and do allow our best and newest information to inform policy. This is about as wrong as it gets. >And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," I pretty closely follow the state level organizations and my home state that work on environmental issues, and I've even volunteered with them from time to time. I could tell you as a pretty ironclad matter of fact that they don't advocate for anything like you're claiming. In my state they're advocating for things like incentives and rebates to install heat pumps and solar panels, as well as regulations that help utilities more effectively accommodate renewable energy. Stuff like that. As other commenters in this thread are noting this is a massive strawman.
hackeraccount 3y ago
Political choices are handled by politicians. It might be nice if saying "Science" were the equivalent of "Open Sesame" but it is not.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Huge numbers of people are going to die regardless at this point, we’re simply arguing the mechanisms by which the outcome is arrived at. We waited too long to make meaningful changes to positively impact carbon trajectory and planetary boundaries [1], everyone lived on proverbial credit (draining resources faster than sustainable), and everyone is unhappy the bill came due that sophisticated participants knew would come. Oh well (not glib, just a realist). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38065125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38065125 (citations)

cryptonector 3y ago
> Huge numbers of people are going to die regardless at this point It would already be happening and we would have noticed.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c... | https://archive.ph/S07av https://archive.ph/S07av https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-related-deaths https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement---climate-change-is-already-killing-us--but-strong-action-now-can-prevent-more-deaths https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement---... https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897 https://www.v-20.org/new-health-data-shows-unabated-climate-change-will-cause-3.4-million-deaths-per-year-by-century-end https://www.v-20.org/new-health-data-shows-unabated-climate-... I am not worried if you don't believe. It doesn't matter if you do. Doesn't matter if I do for that matter. It only matters if people who have big levers do.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I remember when I found out millions die every year from air pollution, including in my own rich 'clean' country where there are no visible smog issues. I still can't believe this isn't common knowledge. It seems to be stuck because it's not new enough to make the news that people watch/read, abstract enough (like dying from smoking-induced diseases) that it's hard to find eyeball-drawing examples, and inactionable (as an individual) in similar ways to global warming so you'd just feel powerless anyway. But collectively we ought to know these things to make good policy decisions :/ It was also hard to believe at first because, if it were so bad, surely someone would have done something. Alas, it's just not sufficiently in the public's, and thus policymakers', perception.

Aachen 3y ago

What would you expect astronomers to do if there's a building-sized asteroid headed for Earth in 40 years and the response so far has been to build a handful of bunkers and now there's 6 years left to build the complicated spaceship that needs to save the remaining millions living in the region where it's going to hit? I understand the idiology of science existing in a abstract realm detached from reality and politics, but also, I can't fault them from feeling the heat under their feet. Climate change is not existential for us, but it's gonna suck and can be entirely prevented if you can only somehow get through to people > And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," then people might get upset with you. People got upset with Nelson Mandela also, enough to lock him up for 27 years. I wonder if he'd say today he'd rather not have made people upset to help solve a big problem

AnonC 3y ago
On the asteroid question, you don’t have to wonder. Watching the satirical movie “Don’t Look Up” from 2021 [1] is enough commentary about humanity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up
prewett 3y ago
> [climate change] can be entirely prevented ... People need to accept that this statement is just incorrect. We cannot stop it in the near future. Even if we had the means of producing non-CO2 energy in quantities enough to provide all our energy needs today (that is, net-zero CO2 today), what we've already added will still continue to add heat. We do not have the facilities to produce bio-jet fuel in industrial quantities at inexpensive prices. It's going to take years to convert the elect grid to wind and solar, and that's even when people want to do it because it's cheaper. We need some way to replace all the fossil fuel used in agriculture, somehow make concrete net-zero, efficiently create steel without CO2. Ain't happening any time soon, even everyone wanted it. > ... if you can only somehow get through to people Actually, a large number of people have actually decided. They want to ignore it. It's not the choice you want, and I don't think it's a responsible or wise choice, but if you want to actually solve the problem, you need to deal with that reality. Just saying "well, if we could only pass a law and force people..." is foolish (which is the next step after "getting through to people" doesn't work because they already made their choice). If you want to solve the problem, make people want to do it of their own free will. For instance, make it cheaper to be net-zero CO2 than to burn it. Make it cheaper to take out CO2 from the atmosphere than to burn it. Make it so much cheaper to use less than people want to use less. Unfortunately, there are some hard problems from a chemistry standpoint here.

lproven 3y ago

I think this response is wrong-headed on multiple counts. It is emotional rhetoric, pretending to be a reasoned argument. > This is basically correct Why is it correct? Says who? > and it is the thing that every climate activist does not seem to understand. I think it is you that does not understand how and why people are reacting. > then you have entered into the realm of political economy. False assertion. "You like having an economy: in general, having money and trade. If you do not do these things, nobody will have money." ... is not a political statement. To say it is, is to say that a statement such as: "Watch out, there's a car coming!" ... is a manifesto about transport issues. > Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. That sounds largely correct. But then: > It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. Yes, it is. Stopping personal ICE vehicle transport, stopping non-essential flights, stopping all meat eating, stop using all petrochemicals... That does not spell doom for billions. Yours is the emotional exaggeration here. > if it's your position that the most important thing right now is to stop emitting carbon [...] then your position is utterly insane This is a standard, if very strange to me, right-wing political tactic: take what you are doing, accuse your opponents of doing it, then mock it. It is, in a word, BS. It is crude appeal to emotion, and it is lying. An honest response would be "we have left it too late and so now billions will die". But you are being nothing but dishonest, while role-playing some kind of square-jawed straight-talker or something. It is too late. The only question now is how bad it will be and if the blows can be softened. If you're too busy for more than 3min of reading, read this: https://www.okdoomer.io/10-reasons-our-civilization-will-soon-collapse/ https://www.okdoomer.io/10-reasons-our-civilization-will-soo... If you've got an hour, read this: https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to... Both well cited, both lacking rhetoric, both taking a cold hard look at where we stand. While your are trying to mock your perceived opponents by misstating what they are saying and doing, and you should be ashamed.

soupfordummies 3y ago
>> "Climate change will cause agricultural failure and subsequent collapse of hyperfragile modern civilization, likely within 10–15 years. By 2050 total human population will likely be under 2 billion. Humans, along with most other animals, will go extinct before the end of this century. These impacts are locked in and cannot be averted." If you truly believe that then why are you wasting time on HN?

huijzer 3y ago

> Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. I think there is a lot possible still. People would not die from smaller cars, less travelling, and smaller houses. Until the 1960s, people almost never took an airplane. Airlines sold the idea that 2 to 3 long distance vacations per year are necessary for mental health.

CapstanRoller 3y ago
Smaller houses would be very helpful for several generations of would-be homeowners. Most people do not want a McMansion as a "starter house" nor can they afford it, but that's typically what's available.

lamontcg 3y ago

> Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months. Literally nobody is suggesting we do that. That's one of the dumbest strawman arguments I've read recently. We've basically done nothing so far, and we're all out of ideas. We could instead do things like just reverse the tax cuts for SUVs and Trucks and apply taxes on top of them and phase out the "light truck" CAFE standards. And fewer pedestrians might die from overweight vehicles.

jlmorton 3y ago
The problem with climate change is that no one understands the staggering scale of what has to happen to address it. > Literally nobody is suggesting we do that. Okay, well what are we suggesting? Do we want to stay within the 1.5C warming target? * If we banned all global commercial aviation tomorrow (~750Mt), we would save 4.5 Gt over 6 years, delaying our lock-in date by about 5 weeks. * If we banned all global passenger vehicles tomorrow (~5Gt), about 30Gt over 6 years, we delay the date by ~9 months. I'm sorry, but if no one is suggesting we do these things, why is so much ink spilled over the 1.5C warming carbon budget? If you don't want to breach it, we _have_ to do these things, there is no other choice. You can't just tweak US CAFE standards a little bit. Even if you immediately ban every single car and truck on the road on the entire planet, you're nowhere even remotely close to where you need to be to prevent 1.5C warming. If you ban all cars globally, all trucks, all global commercial aviation, if you immaculately create 50 billion carbon-free solar panels to provide free and green solar renewable energy for every single residential household on the planet, you've still only delayed things by a couple years. Fertilizer is about 2.6Gt annually, 15.6Gt over six years. Are we going to keep that? What are you suggesting we should do? And this is exactly what the point of my comment is all about. Things like the linked article in this story are designed to allow people to moralize about climate change without affirmatively supporting a particular policy choice. It's just a club to beat people over the head with, without actually describing what the solution is. It gives people the idea that we _could_ meet these targets if we wanted to, maybe with some minor changes, some cost that someone else could absorb. But we can't. The only way we could meet the 1.5C warming target is with massive, drastic changes to the lives of all of us, changes so large that our lives would be unrecognizable, and indeed, enormous numbers would die.

glenstein 3y ago

Where to even start. I think I would start first by noting the huge problem with your choice to label a climate catastrophe as someone's "favorite" issue. To my mind this is a manner of playing games with words that's immediately self-disqualifying. I imagine that a climate scientist's favorite thing, their actual favorite thing, depending on the person, might be experiences with friends and family, their favorite books, their comfort at home. A favorite "political issue" could have connotations of being some curious side hobby that absorbs a person's time, like a guilty pleasure for which they might make apologies for their interest, like being into trains in public transportation, or nerding out over Federal reserve policy. If someone is a climate scientist, and reviews a bunch of models and research showing catastrophic consequences for the planet, and wants to communicate about that, labeling that as a "favorite view" is a representation that misses 99% of what's important about why a person is motivated to communicate about it, because nothing about it has to do with the selection of a personal interest or the satisfaction of becoming immersed in it. So it's not a description that passes a step zero sanity check. Next is the notion that by communicating about this they have inappropriately crossed lines from science into politics. I think talking this way repeats something that I believe is a pretty fundamental confusion regarding the fact value distinction. And without getting into a long version of it, I think Hillary Putnam is a pretty excellent philosopher on the specific question, and on the ways that people use the fact value distinction to attempt to insulate policy from being informed by facts in ways that allow people to be more deeply harmed. But no, the state of the Earth and the environment in the choices we make about it are all already intrinsically political, in the sense that there's something important at stake where we have to collectively weigh what choices we want to make, and this is not a case of a frivolous one that's a mere indulgence. There is no pre-existing state of nature that has become newly violated by climate scientists sounding the alarm. We can and do allow our best and newest information to inform policy. This is about as wrong as it gets. >And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," I pretty closely follow the state level organizations and my home state that work on environmental issues, and I've even volunteered with them from time to time. I could tell you as a pretty ironclad matter of fact that they don't advocate for anything like you're claiming. In my state they're advocating for things like incentives and rebates to install heat pumps and solar panels, as well as regulations that help utilities more effectively accommodate renewable energy. Stuff like that. As other commenters in this thread are noting this is a massive strawman.

hackeraccount 3y ago

Political choices are handled by politicians. It might be nice if saying "Science" were the equivalent of "Open Sesame" but it is not.