Because they think it might make people give a shit enough to do something to change that outcome?
Fear is a strong motivator, but it is not a good one in this case. To really be effective, there must be the threat of direct, immediate, and severe consequences.
Instead it causes people to treat their messages as hyperbolic and undermines their entire movement.
tl;dr is there's very poor ROI to do nothing to improve our polluting habits and banking on the world sorting itself out.
Furthermore, most actions we can take to improve climate outcomes can also improve societal and technological outcomes. The only downside to taking more actions to have clean energy and less pollution are based on made up economic rules that normal people are supposed to follow, but that the super rich/powerful skirt at their leisure. A cleaner future benefits the VAST majority, irrespective of climate change. And the bonus is that if climate change does progress, we're better suited to manage it.
Or we can keep burning liquified dinosaur bones and partying like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get the appeal of the 60s for how care free people could be - they lived without consequence. And we're stuck dealing with their failed policies.
Why put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.
Very much agree. It's a pretty common mistake to bundle real information with obviously wrong details and lose credibility. Especially in the eyes of people looking for a reason to discredit the argument.
The disingenuous people who discredit climate change will do so no matter how serious people act. There is no point in changing behavior on their account.
because whales can communicate into the thousands of kilometers range and nowadays, because of marine traffic, they are luck to get into the hundred meters
micro-plastics into the ocean don't have a good prognosis on numbers reduction
50 years of failed climate predictions.
https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating...
What I'm wondering is why is there such a push for this stuff? Why does someone want everyone to think life as we know it is ending?
Because they think it might make people give a shit enough to do something to change that outcome?
Fear is a strong motivator, but it is not a good one in this case. To really be effective, there must be the threat of direct, immediate, and severe consequences.
Instead it causes people to treat their messages as hyperbolic and undermines their entire movement.
There also has been, in the past, threat of indirect consequences that would happen in the future. They never came true.
> What I'm wondering is why is there such a push for this stuff? Why does someone want everyone to think life as we know it is ending?
Simple thought exercise (it's a 2x2):
What are the consequences of climate change being consequential vs inconsequential?
What are the consequences of us doing too little or too much to mitigate climate change?
Which quadrants are most consequential for the future of our planet?
tl;dr is there's very poor ROI to do nothing to improve our polluting habits and banking on the world sorting itself out.
Furthermore, most actions we can take to improve climate outcomes can also improve societal and technological outcomes. The only downside to taking more actions to have clean energy and less pollution are based on made up economic rules that normal people are supposed to follow, but that the super rich/powerful skirt at their leisure. A cleaner future benefits the VAST majority, irrespective of climate change. And the bonus is that if climate change does progress, we're better suited to manage it.
Or we can keep burning liquified dinosaur bones and partying like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get the appeal of the 60s for how care free people could be - they lived without consequence. And we're stuck dealing with their failed policies.
Why put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.
Very much agree. It's a pretty common mistake to bundle real information with obviously wrong details and lose credibility. Especially in the eyes of people looking for a reason to discredit the argument.
The disingenuous people who discredit climate change will do so no matter how serious people act. There is no point in changing behavior on their account.
1 reply →
[dead]
because whales can communicate into the thousands of kilometers range and nowadays, because of marine traffic, they are luck to get into the hundred meters
micro-plastics into the ocean don't have a good prognosis on numbers reduction
global warming has a huge effect on oceanic life
and so on. maybe the number is much worse
cod fishing boats used to have to be wary of the catch being so big that it would tip the boat.
We have no real frame of reference for what we've already lost.
Of course we do, you just gave an example. In fact if we truly didn't, then there would be no problem.
2 replies →
Weakening predictions until they become unfalsifiable seems like an odd approach to being taken seriously.
And will give way to many which thrive or evolve to thrive in hotter climates?
In human time scales, the species which thrive will tend to be the adaptive generalists. Evolution takes time.
It's gonna take a minute (on a geological timescale) for the ecosystems to be able to reliably sustain megafauna again.
Given that we support megafauna today, could you explain why? Legitimately asking, since I don't see a reason they couldn't adapt just as well.
14 replies →
Sure, in a few million years.
Not at the pace of change we’ve chosen to accept, no.
It’s game over for a very long time
[dead]
Yeah, totally in 30 years. And in 2006-2009 Antarctica became ice free.
[dead]