2 ms·

It really depends on what you mean by "scientific consensus". Nuclear scientists have famously run a Doomsday Clock since 1947 predicting that we're going to nu

It really depends on what you mean by "scientific consensus". Nuclear scientists have famously run a Doomsday Clock since 1947 predicting that we're going to nuke ourselves to death soon. Is that a consensus, or do there need to be formal academic studies which claim to prove universal collapse is coming? (How could you build such a study? Does the equivalent exist for climate change?) Equally importantly, not all predictions are of the "came and went" variety. The ozone layer had a collapse prediction, and that prediction was 100% true - but we responded to it, fixed it, and now the ozone layer is doing fine and expected to make a full recovery soon. It would have been a lot harder if advocates went around saying that the ozone layer is guaranteed to collapse unless we stop using refrigerators!

bishbosh 2y ago
I think both your examples speak to why we shouldn't be flippant about claims of climate collapse. The Doomsday Clock is not a valid representation of scientific consensus, and is completely incomparable to the current conversation. It largely reflects the political interpretation of one non-profit. In contrast the concerns over climate change are not posted in PR briefs, but in a plethora of scientific papers, in various fields, that repeatedly show we are in or past a worse case prediction. The ozone layer is more analogous, but the problem had the advantage of being a specific problem, with a soon found and cost efficient solution. In comparison, climate change is also 100% true, but rather than a particular aerosol that can be swapped out, it is literally the foundation of the entirety of human industrialization.
yongjik 2y ago
> It would have been a lot harder if advocates went around saying that the ozone layer is guaranteed to collapse unless we stop using refrigerators! Correction: It would have been a lot harder if multinational companies went around saying that refrigerants are made of chlorine and carbon, which are an essential part of life, nobody knows how the level of ozone fluctuated in past centuries, and it's all a liberal conspiracy to prevent you from eating as much frozen meat every day as you freedom-loving citizen rightfully deserves.

bishbosh 2y ago

I think both your examples speak to why we shouldn't be flippant about claims of climate collapse. The Doomsday Clock is not a valid representation of scientific consensus, and is completely incomparable to the current conversation. It largely reflects the political interpretation of one non-profit. In contrast the concerns over climate change are not posted in PR briefs, but in a plethora of scientific papers, in various fields, that repeatedly show we are in or past a worse case prediction. The ozone layer is more analogous, but the problem had the advantage of being a specific problem, with a soon found and cost efficient solution. In comparison, climate change is also 100% true, but rather than a particular aerosol that can be swapped out, it is literally the foundation of the entirety of human industrialization.

yongjik 2y ago

> It would have been a lot harder if advocates went around saying that the ozone layer is guaranteed to collapse unless we stop using refrigerators! Correction: It would have been a lot harder if multinational companies went around saying that refrigerants are made of chlorine and carbon, which are an essential part of life, nobody knows how the level of ozone fluctuated in past centuries, and it's all a liberal conspiracy to prevent you from eating as much frozen meat every day as you freedom-loving citizen rightfully deserves.