8 ms·

> I recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. No, you don't. And googling for https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=cl

> I recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. No, you don't. And googling for https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+models+that+predicted+we%27d+all+be+under+water https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+m... gives me that Quora question where people seem to agree https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-predict-a-1-meter-sea-level-rise-by-now https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-pr... Also: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... (Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate) > Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate. Now where are you on my list: > Quoting myself (again) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 : > - There's no climate change > - Climate change is okay and has no impact > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes and its impacts are small > - Climate change exists but its impacts are good for us > - Climate change exists but we will adapt > - Climate change exists and its the activists' fault we didn't act because they scared us with their doomsday predictions > - Climate change exists and we shouldn't talk about it because it's scary and scared people are not productive members of society

MichaelNolan 2y ago
The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”
- johnchristopher 2y ago
  > The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I heard the first one on the radio, it was in a debate/show about eco-anxiety. The second one I read it first on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428: > > > How about the psychological damage done by the fear mongering caused by these type of news regarding climate change? > > What about it? > You're not concerned about how having such a large percentage of population becoming basically useless due to psychological problems can trouble the future of mankind? > > I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” > I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial” Ah, nice addition. Thanks ! I'll think about it before adding them. Originally the list displayed progressive steps (it's a process) but maybe there are some branching to illustrate.
- blooalien 2y ago
  And then there's me: "Climate change is absolutely real and there's a lot we could do / have done / be doing about it, but we won't do it, because too many of us worship the filthy-rich monsters who created the problem (and then lied to keep it going), and will defend their right to destroy us all for "shareholder value" right up to the very end."
pcrh 2y ago
Thanks for those sources!
akira2501 2y ago
> No, you don't. Yea, we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise > They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of. > Now where are you on my list: If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.
- croes 2y ago
  Where does it say we should be underwater now?
- johnchristopher 2y ago
  > That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of. No, an extreme prediction would be "the oceans are literally boiling". We don't have such headlines. Instead we have headlines reporting extreme facts such as: Copernicus: 2023 is the hottest year on record, with global temperatures close to the 1.5°C limit (https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-r...) or Last 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded on the planet (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/04/09/global-temperatures-hit-record-highs-for-tenth-consecutive-month-in-march_6667824_114.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/04/09/glo...) > > Now where are you on my list: > If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it. I am past trying to convince climate change deniers to care more about climate. Quoting myself again: > With climate deniers and complotists I always suppose they hide their real stance and it is revealed through small hints they let out. I strongly believe these small hints are baits to see if the other party has the same beliefs. They will be lying until they think there are in like-minded company (or are too drunk and let it out). > Yeah, I have been burned hard before by climate and covid deniers who lied right out to my face. They are dishonest and advance in disguise (with loaded questions and fake scepticism and the whole arsenal of arguments coming from fabricated doubt factories).
ipaddr 2y ago
If people acknowledge climate change (all but first example) how can you label them a denier (from your link)? They agree change is happening.. what are they denying? Your solutions or your panic? Why should someone who answered like above answer the way you want. Prove your case.
- johnchristopher 2y ago
  > They agree change is happening.. what are they denying? That the change is anthropogenic. That its consequences are not mild, etc., etc. They've moved from climate denial to climate change consequences denial to obstructing climate action. It's a process.

MichaelNolan 2y ago

The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”

johnchristopher 2y ago
> The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I heard the first one on the radio, it was in a debate/show about eco-anxiety. The second one I read it first on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428: > > > How about the psychological damage done by the fear mongering caused by these type of news regarding climate change? > > What about it? > You're not concerned about how having such a large percentage of population becoming basically useless due to psychological problems can trouble the future of mankind? > > I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” > I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial” Ah, nice addition. Thanks ! I'll think about it before adding them. Originally the list displayed progressive steps (it's a process) but maybe there are some branching to illustrate.
blooalien 2y ago
And then there's me: "Climate change is absolutely real and there's a lot we could do / have done / be doing about it, but we won't do it, because too many of us worship the filthy-rich monsters who created the problem (and then lied to keep it going), and will defend their right to destroy us all for "shareholder value" right up to the very end."

pcrh 2y ago

Thanks for those sources!

akira2501 2y ago

> No, you don't. Yea, we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise > They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of. > Now where are you on my list: If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.

croes 2y ago
Where does it say we should be underwater now?
johnchristopher 2y ago
> That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of. No, an extreme prediction would be "the oceans are literally boiling". We don't have such headlines. Instead we have headlines reporting extreme facts such as: Copernicus: 2023 is the hottest year on record, with global temperatures close to the 1.5°C limit (https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-r...) or Last 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded on the planet (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/04/09/global-temperatures-hit-record-highs-for-tenth-consecutive-month-in-march_6667824_114.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/04/09/glo...) > > Now where are you on my list: > If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it. I am past trying to convince climate change deniers to care more about climate. Quoting myself again: > With climate deniers and complotists I always suppose they hide their real stance and it is revealed through small hints they let out. I strongly believe these small hints are baits to see if the other party has the same beliefs. They will be lying until they think there are in like-minded company (or are too drunk and let it out). > Yeah, I have been burned hard before by climate and covid deniers who lied right out to my face. They are dishonest and advance in disguise (with loaded questions and fake scepticism and the whole arsenal of arguments coming from fabricated doubt factories).

ipaddr 2y ago

If people acknowledge climate change (all but first example) how can you label them a denier (from your link)? They agree change is happening.. what are they denying? Your solutions or your panic? Why should someone who answered like above answer the way you want. Prove your case.

johnchristopher 2y ago
> They agree change is happening.. what are they denying? That the change is anthropogenic. That its consequences are not mild, etc., etc. They've moved from climate denial to climate change consequences denial to obstructing climate action. It's a process.