3 ms·

I'm all for bringing attention to anthropogenic changes we bring to our planet, and we should definitely be concerned with reversibility or runaway effects, but

by lxe 3y ago

I'm all for bringing attention to anthropogenic changes we bring to our planet, and we should definitely be concerned with reversibility or runaway effects, but defining things in this fashion seems arbitrary and feels like junk science that can become easy fodder to the climate deniers.

303uru 3y ago
It's a difficult nut to crack. How do you get across the severity and imminence without enabling the "the world didn't light on fire when you said it would!" crowd. No simple answer there.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How do you get across the severity and imminence without enabling the "the world didn't light on fire when you said it would!" crowd Error bars would help. Also, defining what red versus orange means. Are the damage assessments consistent across domains, e.g. should we drop climate change as a priority to focus on novel entities? If the purpose is to prompt policy action, I'd start by constraining the time horizon: probable damage within 10 to 20 years. Then, dollarise it. Give it error bars. Now you have a price tag an activist can talk about when convincing voters to bear a given cost. You also have a device that builds credibility--you can look back and quantify the cost of not mitigating.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    In fact, you can build a cascading series: If we don't do anything in 10 years, here's the damage, in dollars, with error bars. If we don't in 20 years, here's the damage then. In 30 years, and 50. But the numbers have to be defensible, or they're going to get shredded by people who don't want to do something.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      People who don’t want to do anything won’t be convinced by data
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  You seem to be asking how you can be speak hyperbolically while sounding realistic.
krainboltgreene 3y ago
> feels like junk science that can become easy fodder to the climate deniers. Climate deniers are not a political body with any weight, capital interests are. We aren't taking as much precaution because the 71% of carbon emissions refuse to do anything about it. They aren't run by climate deniers because they withheld reports that explained it.

by lxe 3y ago

303uru 3y ago

It's a difficult nut to crack. How do you get across the severity and imminence without enabling the "the world didn't light on fire when you said it would!" crowd. No simple answer there.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How do you get across the severity and imminence without enabling the "the world didn't light on fire when you said it would!" crowd Error bars would help. Also, defining what red versus orange means. Are the damage assessments consistent across domains, e.g. should we drop climate change as a priority to focus on novel entities? If the purpose is to prompt policy action, I'd start by constraining the time horizon: probable damage within 10 to 20 years. Then, dollarise it. Give it error bars. Now you have a price tag an activist can talk about when convincing voters to bear a given cost. You also have a device that builds credibility--you can look back and quantify the cost of not mitigating.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  In fact, you can build a cascading series: If we don't do anything in 10 years, here's the damage, in dollars, with error bars. If we don't in 20 years, here's the damage then. In 30 years, and 50. But the numbers have to be defensible, or they're going to get shredded by people who don't want to do something.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    People who don’t want to do anything won’t be convinced by data
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
You seem to be asking how you can be speak hyperbolically while sounding realistic.

krainboltgreene 3y ago

> feels like junk science that can become easy fodder to the climate deniers. Climate deniers are not a political body with any weight, capital interests are. We aren't taking as much precaution because the 71% of carbon emissions refuse to do anything about it. They aren't run by climate deniers because they withheld reports that explained it.