Opinion Climate denial has shifted to Climate doomerism

[Kassitus]

Hey thanks for going mask off on the beliefs most on the right try and hide.

Np bro, I'm not the kind of guy who gets in debates or anything so I have no idea how common it is for people to hide their opinions on this topic. I am generally right wing but for the record I have no problem with lefties as long as they do not live in sin.

 

[no fat chicks]

Np bro, I'm not the kind of guy who gets in debates or anything so I have no idea how common it is for people to hide their opinions on this topic. I am generally right wing but for the record I have no problem with lefties as long as they do not live in sin.

So people in africa dying of starvation = meh , but lefties living in sin. . . Big trouble. Weird priorities but you do you.

 

[Rob Battisti]

This isn't a dire conflict between two nations, or a famine within one. Those things have theoretical solutions that can actually work. With GLOBAL warming, a GLOBAL effort would be needed to combat it. No, the west using reusable shopping bags and paper straws, is not a "solution" to this. Nor would any "Save The World" tax. All you're doing is welcoming suffering on your own nation, while everyone else doesn't even try to give a fuck. And for what? To pat yourself on the back?

Thank you.

No idea why that guy didn’t respond to either of our posts.

 

[Kassitus]

So people in africa dying of starvation = meh , but lefties living in sin. . . Big trouble. Weird priorities but you do you.

I could pretend to be a global super hero but who am I fooling. I prioritize the issues directly affecting me and my family. African man doesn't care if I am trying to pull my ass out of an icey lake and I don't blame him one bit.

 

[Levi_]

10-15 years ago, they would say well, 90% of climate scientists believe it. That is no more because the scientific has gotten a lot stronger since then. It is virtually all climate scientists; there is always a few outlying quacks, but it is virtually everyone. Every major scientific organization in the world believes in global warming (and that it is caused by humans). If you aren't dim, you see the erratic whether events and unprecedented heat, and a lot of results from the weather such as worse fires every year. This is one of those things that people disbelieve because it fits their larger belief system.

There is also the fact that it is warming faster than it ever has. Of the 5 mass extinction events in history, 3 were related to or caused by global warming, but those took much longer. Those were from CO2 coming from volcanoes which happened over a long period of time. The CO2 we produce today is far greater than those volcanoes were (in the same period of time I mean).

Jordan Peterson is a wannabe climate scientist that doesn't know shit. He is a doctor of psychology, not climatology. But he talks in a sophisticated way, and people think what he is saying must be profound if he uses complex language that they can't understand- it is bullshit. Don't be fooled.

 

[Rob Battisti]

10-15 years ago, they would say well, 90% of climate scientists believe it. That is no more because the scientific has gotten a lot stronger since then. It is virtually all climate scientists; there is always a few outlying quacks, but it is virtually everyone. Every major scientific organization in the world believes in global warming (and that it is caused by humans). If you aren't dim, you see the erratic whether events and unprecedented heat, and a lot of results from the weather such as worse fires every year. This is one of those things that people disbelieve because it fits their larger belief system.

There is also the fact that it is warming faster than it ever has. Of the 5 mass extinction events in history, 3 were related to or caused by global warming, but those took much longer. Those were from CO2 coming from volcanoes which happened over a long period of time. The CO2 we produce today is far greater than those volcanoes were (in the same period of time I mean).

Jordan Peterson is a wannabe climate scientist that doesn't know shit. He is a doctor of psychology, not climatology. But he talks in a sophisticated way, and people think what he is saying must be profound if he uses complex language that they can't understand- it is bullshit. Don't be fooled.

So, what should we do?

 

[Levi_]

So, what should we do?

Most scientists say that if we cleaned things up, we could slow it down and be ok. I don't think it is any kind of pending doom, but I think the kids being born right now are going to feel the consequences eventually. It's quite hard because of all the polluters in other places, so even if you get the US do well, you have the problem of the others. There are non-drastic things we could start doing to improve the situation.

The bad thing about global warming extinction events is how long the warming hangs around after the extinction event. The worst one in history was the Permian extinction, which was a when CO2 from volcanoes caused 95% of ocean life and over 90% of land species to go extinct. It took several million years after that before complex ecosystems could arise again because the earth was so jacked up and hot. My point is, if we get past the point of no return, there is no going back. I don't think it will go totally wrong in my lifetime, but extreme weather events will continue to get worse. I'm willing to do my part for future generations.

Everything is pointless unless you get Brazil China and India to change. Convince me otherwise.

I'm not here to convince you otherwise, but I think we can do our best and continue to try to get the rest of the world to go along as best we can. If we just throw our hands up and do nothing, we hasten the misery; I think we keep making our best effort.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Most scientists say that if we cleaned things up, we could slow it down and be ok. I don't think it is any kind of pending doom, but I think the kids being born right now are going to feel the consequences eventually. It's quite hard because of all the polluters in other places, so even if you get the US do well, you have the problem of the others. There are non-drastic things we could start doing to improve the situation.

The bad thing about global warming extinction events is how long the warming hangs around after the extinction event. The worst one in history was the Permian extinction, which was a when CO2 from volcanoes caused 95% of ocean life and over 90% of land species to go extinct. It took several million years after that before complex ecosystems could arise again because the earth was so jacked up and hot. My point is, if we get past the point of no return, there is no going back. I don't think it will go totally wrong in my lifetime, but extreme weather events will continue to get worse. I'm willing to do my part for future generations.


I'm not here to convince you otherwise, but I think we can do our best and continue to try to get the rest of the world to go along as best we can. If we just throw our hands up and do nothing, we hasten the misery; I think we keep making our best effort.

Not trying to be rude, but you really didn’t say anything in this post other than “we should do better”.

Okay. I agree. We should absolutely find novel ways to reduce waste and plastic waste specifically. We should find ways to clean up our lands and get cleaner water and air. We should do what we can here.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that whatever we do would slow down the issue globally.

We also shouldn’t impose pushes toward “green” energy which reduce our prosperity in the name of saving the planet.

We shouldn’t even think about carbon taxes on individuals.

What specifically should we do?

 

[Levi_]

Not trying to be rude, but you really didn’t say anything in this post other than “we should do better”.

Okay. I agree. We should absolutely find novel ways to reduce waste and plastic waste specifically. We should find ways to clean up our lands and get cleaner water and air. We should do what we can here.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that whatever we do would slow down the issue globally.

We also shouldn’t impose pushes toward “green” energy which reduce our prosperity in the name of saving the planet.

We shouldn’t even think about carbon taxes on individuals.

What specifically should we do?

I'm not really interested in debating the politics, as you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. It's especially useless in a place where you can't talk because communication is poor that way, and misinterpretation is common. Plus, it's just too much typing (this is a super complex issue).

Doing everything you can on an individual level to reduce what you use is a good place to start, I would at least say that. Trying to rationalize 'ah we will never change it' and continuing as we are, that is where all is lost. That same poor logic is used by those who don't vote, it doesn't hold water in the bigger picture. I'm sure I don't need to school you on the different things one can do, it's pretty common knowledge and you likely know all of it.

As far as the macro approach, I think the same thing. Without getting into all of the specifics (which could be debated for a year straight), I don't think rationalizing that way works either- 'ah, China is doing bad, so fuck it all, let's toast the earth.' There have always been bad countries doing bad things, that doesn't justify the same for us.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm not really interested in debating the politics, as you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. It's especially useless in a place where you can't talk because communication is poor that way, and misinterpretation is common. Plus, it's just too much typing (this is a super complex issue).

Doing everything you can on an individual level to reduce what you use is a good place to start, I would at least say that. Trying to rationalize 'ah we will never change it' and continuing as we are, that is where all is lost. That same poor logic is used by those who don't vote, it doesn't hold water in the bigger picture. I'm sure I don't need to school you on the different things one can do, it's pretty common knowledge and you likely know all of it.

As far as the macro approach, I think the same thing. Without getting into all of the specifics (which could be debated for a year straight), I don't think rationalizing that way works either- 'ah, China is doing bad, so fuck it all, let's toast the earth.' There have always been bad countries doing bad things, that doesn't justify the same for us.

I don’t want to debate politics.

I genuinely want to know what you think we can do as individuals to have an impact on the global scale if nothing changes in China, India or Brazil.

I also think we should take individual responsibility and clean up and reduce waste here.

I just want to know if you believe that it will have an actual difference in the grand scheme.

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Levi_ what I mean to say is, we should take individual responsibility. We should try to reduce reuse and recycle. We should find novel ways to reduce pollution at home.

I just want to be realistic that these efforts should be not onerous economically because there isn’t really anything we can do to stop the train.

We should pressure these other countries as much as we can because THAT can stop the train.

We should find alternative energy sources because THAT can stop the train.

We should lead more in nuclear. We should find new ways to break down plastics.

However, I fail to see how hurting our economy on failed green energy initiatives for the “sake of the planet” helps.

I would hope you’d oppose individual carbon taxes as well.

 

[Levi_]

@Levi_ what I mean to say is, we should take individual responsibility. We should try to reduce reuse and recycle. We should find novel ways to reduce pollution at home.

I just want to be realistic that these efforts should be not onerous economically because there isn’t really anything we can do to stop the train.

We should pressure these other countries as much as we can because THAT can stop the train.

We should find alternative energy sources because THAT can stop the train.

We should lead more in nuclear. We should find new ways to break down plastics.

However, I fail to see how hurting our economy on failed green energy initiatives for the “sake of the planet” helps.

I would hope you’d oppose individual carbon taxes as well.

What seems to fly over a lot of people's heads is the fleecing by the oil companies. While we were suffering with high gas prices, they were raking in record profits; we sit here blaming the government and people of the other party while the oil execs party with the money we need for day-to-day life. That would be a good place to start (and could work if leaders weren't in their pockets). Some real public pressure to get politicians out of the oil company's pocket could really change things. Make those fuckers pay, they have most of the money and are a good portion of the problem. It's not that I think someone shouldn't shell out the bucks to reduce carbon, I just think we are looking at the wrong people to do that.

China actually is implementing a program which incentivizes low carbon, which I think is a good idea. We give subsidies to all kinds of companies that are a result of pure pork barrel politics to the tune of billions a year; we need to spend that money more wisely.

Cow farms produce massive CO2. I don't think we have to all hug trees and go vegan, but if we all just cut down, had smaller portions of meat or ate it with less meals, that would hugely reduce it. We need to make common sense changes when we can. I do think we can make green initiatives that aren't damaging, we just need to work to agree on how to do that. In an environment of hyperpolarization, it's really hard to do that, so hopefully this time period blows over before we wreck ourselves.

Yes alternate energy sources are good to work on. We just need to be careful and not be like Japan. First we nuked them, then they were careless enough to nuke themselves. You need to have a lot of safety protocols for that sort of thing.

Gotta run, catch up with you later on.

 

[Rob Battisti]

What seems to fly over a lot of people's heads is the fleecing by the oil companies. While we were suffering with high gas prices, they were raking in record profits; we sit here blaming the government and people of the other party while the oil execs party with the money we need for day-to-day life. That would be a good place to start (and could work if leaders weren't in their pockets). Some real public pressure to get politicians out of the oil company's pocket could really change things. Make those fuckers pay, they have most of the money and are a good portion of the problem. It's not that I think someone shouldn't shell out the bucks to reduce carbon, I just think we are looking at the wrong people to do that.

China actually is implementing a program which incentivizes low carbon, which I think is a good idea. We give subsidies to all kinds of companies that are a result of pure pork barrel politics to the tune of billions a year; we need to spend that money more wisely.

Cow farms produce massive CO2. I don't think we have to all hug trees and go vegan, but if we all just cut down, had smaller portions of meat or ate it with less meals, that would hugely reduce it. We need to make common sense changes when we can. I do think we can make green initiatives that aren't damaging, we just need to work to agree on how to do that. In an environment of hyperpolarization, it's really hard to do that, so hopefully this time period blows over before we wreck ourselves.

Yes alternate energy sources are good to work on. We just need to be careful and not be like Japan. First we nuked them, then they were careless enough to nuke themselves. You need to have a lot of safety protocols for that sort of thing.

Gotta run, catch up with you later on.

All good notions.

Once again though, those don’t stop the train.

I think we should incentivize carbon reduction but not to tax it on the individual level.

 

[Levi_]

All good notions.

Once again though, those don’t stop the train.

I think we should incentivize carbon reduction but not to tax it on the individual level.

Not sure what you mean by it 'not stopping the train.' If you look at everything in that post, there is plenty to stop the train. There isn't a magic bullet, or one that that will save us; it will take changes all over the board eventually.

The problem is, you eventually are going to have to shelve your fears of initiatives hurting the economy because the economy will be so damaged by heat, wildfires, extreme weather, rising sea level, etc. that we have no choice but to take more radical measures; this thing isn't going away. We have the option of really doing everything we can on all levels or being forced to pay an even more extreme price economically- economic ruin is coming anyway (and worse).

 

[Rob Battisti]

Not sure what you mean by it 'not stopping the train.' If you look at everything in that post, there is plenty to stop the train. There isn't a magic bullet, or one that that will save us; it will take changes all over the board eventually.

The problem is, you eventually are going to have to shelve your fears of initiatives hurting the economy because the economy will be so damaged by heat, wildfires, extreme weather, rising sea level, etc. that we have no choice but to take more radical measures; this thing isn't going away. We have the option of really doing everything we can on all levels or being forced to pay an even more extreme price economically- economic ruin is coming anyway (and worse).

You do realize that even if the United States completely stopped burning fossil fuels it wouldn’t impact the trajectory of our current path?

I think this is the point you’re missing.

You say things essentially calling to forgo the economic issues to prevent disaster, while not realizing even if we completely stopped existing as a nation it wouldn’t make an impact so long as those other countries continue on their path.

 

[Levi_]

You do realize that even if the United States completely stopped burning fossil fuels it wouldn’t impact the trajectory of our current path?

I think this is the point you’re missing.

You say things essentially calling to forgo the economic issues to prevent disaster, while not realizing even if we completely stopped existing as a nation it wouldn’t make an impact so long as those other countries continue on their path.

Not forego them, just to be realistic. I had said previously we can take action now without extreme damage to the economy if we are diligent and make serious efforts.

The whole 'whatabout' business really is irrelevant. If we get stuck minimizing what we do because of these whataboutisms, the world will NEVER have a chance. We are either serious and are willing to do our part, or we aren't. We are a top producer of CO2 also, and other countries could say the same- "those Americans aren't doing shit, so we are going to die anyway, so fuck it, let's party." China may be number one, but we are way up their too.

There actually are serious attempts by other countries to do this. China actually has taken action even if we don't know how well that is going. As the weather gets more extreme, and there is more damage everywhere, other places are likely to get more serious.

If it helps, we can hold off on the personal carbon tax, as you seem quite concerned about that.

 

[dirtypablo]

You do realize that even if the United States completely stopped burning fossil fuels it wouldn’t impact the trajectory of our current path?

I think this is the point you’re missing.

You say things essentially calling to forgo the economic issues to prevent disaster, while not realizing even if we completely stopped existing as a nation it wouldn’t make an impact so long as those other countries continue on their path.

And you're completely wrong about that - something I've seen mentioned several times in this thread, the idea that any reductions don't matter unless it's a complete stop.

This is not at all what the science on the subject says - quite the contrary to the idea that it's all or nothing, the current scientific understanding is that every little bit matters - compounding effects get significantly worse with every tenth of a degree change.

That's not even getting into the fact that the US is a global leader, if we took the problem seriously others would follow. And as far as other countries, what path are you talking about? You do realize China is doing just as much, if not more than the US is about this issue, correct?