9 ms·

I think climate change is a compelling crisis but I find these types of “could maybe happen according to some models” type of catastrophic scenarios a little fr

• stouset 5mo ago
  What, exactly, do you expect scientists researching these things to do? Bury their findings?
  • 9rx 5mo ago
    I suppose they could refrain from injecting their feelings into it. The science doesn't change if it is presented as simple information and not as a warning.
    • embedding-shape 5mo ago
      So they should be more like "Atlantic currents might shut down, we'll see what happens and if it'll be good or bad" when they already can tell the effects will be pretty bad? Wouldn't that be basically burying the lede?
      • 9rx 5mo ago
        You'd have to ask the one who raised concern with this in the first place. What is apparent, though, is that "good or bad" is contrary to science. Science seeks to understand what is, not how you might feel about it. It is interesting that things went there.
        • 13415 5mo ago
          So medicine is not a science because it's concerned with what's "good" and what's "bad" for someone's health? I find this kind of argument principally flawed. Many sciences are concerned with the consequences of human actions and it's hard if not impossible to describe these in meaningful ways without applying some criteria for what outcomes are good (desirable, positively evaluated) and what outcomes are bad (not desirable, negatively evaluated). Besides, there is a whole area of science that maybe is more like engineering but is clearly worthwhile, too, even if it's not strictly a natural science only. For example, urban planning might not be a science in the strict sense but it's clearly important and involves scientific studies. If policy makers can't get from climate scientist's an evaluation of the potential consequences of climate changes, then who else would produce these for them? Should they just make it up on the fly?
          • 9rx 5mo ago
            > So medicine is not a science because it's concerned with what's "good" and what's "bad" for someone's health? It is concerned with understanding health. It is unable to decide what is "good" or "bad" as that is in the eye of the beholder. That is why medicine presents the options gleaned from the gained understanding, leaving the individual to decide for themselves what is "good" amid all the different tradeoffs. The universe has no fundamental concept of "good" or "bad". It is something humans make up. It is curious that someone who seems to have an interest in science doesn't realize that.
            • 13415 5mo ago
              You're nitpicking. Medicine is concerned with what's good and bad for someone's health. Medical doctors literally advise their patients on that and evaluate the effects of actions with respect to what's good and what's bad for their health. What's good and bad for someone's health is simply one form of instrumental goodness. Other sciences evaluate in similar ways, though they are perhaps concerned with other aspects of what's good and bad. Climate scientists are not concerned with what's good and bad for mankind in some abstract philosophical way, but they should without a doubt lay out good or bad consequences of climate change. If the temperature sinks by 10 degrees Celsius in Northern Europe, that would be a bad consequence for the affected countries. It's false and somewhat naive to claim that such evaluations play no role in science, they are a crucial part of many sciences. For instance, they're needed to find worthwhile subjects of study. Not everything is theoretical physics.
    • fatuna 5mo ago
      Who then should inject their feelings? Journalists don't care because it's too abstract, politicians don't care because it won't happen in their term, business doesn't care because there's no money to be made, and the people don't care because of all of the above people telling them to ignore it.
  • bastawhiz 5mo ago
    The scientists aren't journalists. Convince a politician to start planning for national security considerations. Tell them how it'll affect supply chains. Frame it in a way that literally anyone who has a vested interest in doing something would care about.
    • ordu 5mo ago
      It is easier said than done. Politicians do not like to be disturbed by some pesky experts. Mentor Pilot discusses 2025 D.C mid-air collision[1], and finds the most disturbing reason for it: experts tried to escalate issues with too much traffic for years, but they were repeatedly told that it was "too political", so, in other words "just shut up and deal with the traffic, don't bother congressmen and congresswomen, they are too important to be bothered with limits of possible stemming from physics or engineering". Politicians thought (and some think to this day) that climate warming is "too political" to listen to experts. Most of them will think that Atlantic current is too political, till it stops. It is easy to say "convince a politician", but it is hard to do. Politicians think politics, and you have to be a genius among politicians to transform a game field, so some concerns of scientists became a political issue that is not possible to ignore. Geniuses among politicians as as rare as in any other discipline, the most of them will just play existing games, without even thinking of rewriting the rules of the game. BTW, when they try to rewrite, the boring old "play by the rules" might start to look pretty good. Politics is the hardest unsolved problem the humanity faces. We could send humans to the Moon, or it seems increasingly likely we can create an AGI, but we can't make politicians to listen to the reason. [1] https://youtu.be/41UYPeTr96s https://youtu.be/41UYPeTr96s
      • munksbeer 5mo ago
        > but we can't make politicians to listen to the reason. You're stopping too early. Politicians exist for one reason only, to get elected. If they don't get elected, they're not a politician, so everything they do is is selected with that as their fitness function. So why won't they listen about climate change? Because the public doesn't want to be told they have to make their lives slightly worse. There are "politicians" in the UK who constantly warn about climate change. Guess what? They won't get elected. In other words, you're blaming the symptom, not the cause. The general populous is the real reason.
• grey-area 5mo ago
  The risk was 5% and is now above 50% according to experts in the field. Given the significant consequences this is worth paying attention to.
  • Eji1700 5mo ago
    Which the average person doesn’t know because this is the 50th headline they’ve read on how we’re screwed today that hasn’t happened. They’ve blown their attention budget for the layman and aren’t getting it back unless someone serious guides their attention.
    • postflopclarity 5mo ago
      > the 50th headline they’ve read on how we’re screwed today that hasn’t happened the things are happening though. e.g. if you read a headline in the 70s that said something like "ski seasons will shorten by an average of 1 day per year, leading to only 5 inches of snow water equivalent in Colorado resorts by 2026, and eliminating the economic viability of skiing in the northeast by 2060" that would have been completely correct.
      • esseph 5mo ago
        It's a frog/boiling water problem with the timescale.
      • mlhpdx 5mo ago
        Maybe, but that’s a far stride or two from the “doomsday” pitched at laypeople.
        • anadem 5mo ago
          The issue is not that that itself is the doomsday, but that when the current collapses the climate trajectory changes and aims at catastrophe, and changing that will be beyond our ability
          • 5mo ago
• astahlx 5mo ago
  In the past, these climate models were mostly on the conservative side. So I would stop questioning them and ask for more actions to take toward implementing existing climate solutions.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• jmward01 5mo ago
  So many of those 'could maybe happen' are, in fact, happening right now. The researcher is also quoted as saying 'more likely than not' which is pretty big when it comes to something like the AMOC shutting down. This really is catastrophic and really should be causing governments to take immediate, massive, steps to avert it including steps to sanction countries that are causing it.
  • joquarky 5mo ago
    The government entities that can actually do anything are only reactionary now.
  • spwa4 5mo ago
    The big consequence here is for the EU. And the only way to deal with this is for the EU to force US, India and China to seriously reduce energy use, and with that, their economy. This is not going to happen. The EU can't even convince itself to stop buying from China.
    • 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
      China has made huge efforts toward sustainable power. Google it. The us on the other hand is well you know blowing up oil all over the world with military conflicts that are wars but aren't wars but are wars that are over but evolving and over and evolving. They are also rolling back green energy projects , fueling data centers with gas, etc.
      • scoofy 5mo ago
        China’s greatest geopolitical weakness is lack of access to petroleum. That’s why they are going so hard on renewables. We just get the benefits for free.
        • pipodeclown 5mo ago
          Sure but that doesn't change the fact that they are charging s Ahead while the rest of us sit on our hands.
• bix6 5mo ago
  Except the catastrophes are materializing now so those fools are increasingly wrong. The solar panel install stats give me hope. It’s unfortunate the US is burying its head on new alt energy projects but our grifting culture is just too strong.
• watwut 5mo ago
  > providing ammunition to skeptics when the catastrophe doesn’t materialize. This would be compeling if they were actual sceptics who care about evidence. We are talking about people who will bad faith deny everything. Censoring yourself is exactly what they wanted to achieve and did achieved.
• mlhpdx 5mo ago
  Agreed. This kind of provocative story gives many people the sense that science is unreliable, full of shifting narratives and unmet prophesies. That undermines the confidence we need in it as a society.
• runarberg 5mo ago
  I would argue the opposite. The number one frustration I have with climate change is the continued and persistent inaction by our world leaders. I would argue that modeling out worst case scenarios is more likely to reach our leaders and finally break this decades long inaction. I think generally the effects climate skeptics have over climate policy is overstated. And corporations with vested interest in being able to continue releasing massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere have much more say over climate policy then climate skeptics. Now these companies often do weaponize climate skeptics in order to lobby government into continued inaction, but that behavior will continue regardless of how scientists frame their climate models.
  • joquarky 5mo ago
    Paying off debts is too politically unpopular. We can't even balance the budget in the US. Orchestrating climate change mitigation is likely an order of magnitude more difficult than balancing budgets.
    • runarberg 5mo ago
      That has nothing to do with science communication and whether or not scientists should avoid sounding too alarmist when publishing their models for the purpose of getting their desired climate policy enacted by governments.
• scoofy 5mo ago
  You don’t like honesty? Effectively everything in life is a balance of uncertainty. Surgeries can do more harm than good. Drugs have varying efficacy. Investments are uncertain. Careers can disappear. Nobody can tell you the future, but nearly all the scientists freaking out about a potential major issue should me worrying.
  • joquarky 5mo ago
    As long as it doesn't interrupt the next season of Love Island, few will care.
• t0bia_s 5mo ago
  Frightened mind is easily manipulated. For limit freedom of individuals, control masses and so on.