The main problem I have with how the issue of climate change is addressed is that there’s a huge disparity between how it’s described and how most authorities and luminaries have acted. If we are really on the brink of an existential crisis then why haven’t we been panic-building nuclear plants for decades? It was at least a temporary measure that would have bought us time while renewables and batteries caught up, but, nuclear has been widely panned amongst the environmental cadres for decades. True crises call for extreme measures and nuclear is pretty tame by comparison! Also, why haven’t we been running multiple global Manhattan projects to effectively mitigate warming or adapt our lives and our ecosystems to the threat? The intrepid yet comparatively pedestrian efforts of a few billionaires and government research grants are not nearly proportional to the descriptions of what is allegedly imminently upon us. Instead we have mostly platitudes and political theater, like the Paris Climate Agreement. It should come as no surprise then that many people suspect the danger is being exaggerated for political gain.
Political manipulators use lies that validate people's base emotions and fears.
Telling people that all the indulgences they love are destroying the planet but won't affect us until generations in the future is a poor strategy that only a tactless political manipulator would employ. Nobody wants to hear about climate change, it's tone deaf.
To answer your questions, one need only look through the lens of incentives. What are people motivated to do?
> If we are really on the brink of an existential crisis then why haven’t we been panic-building nuclear plants for decades? ... nuclear has been widely panned amongst the environmental cadres for decades.
Making nuclear power into a bogeyman was the fossil fuel industries' first and most wildly successful astroturfing campaign. Co-opting the nascent environmentalist movement in the 1950s was a stroke of genius.
The incentives for fossil fuel miners are, I hope, obvious here.
The incentives for politicians are about keeping their jobs. Say things to stay visible in the media; do what your donors want. Those people in the future? They won't vote for me next election.
So yes, you are right in that politicians are saying things for political gain. Scientists and engineers make really bad politicians though; they tend to say what they believe to be true.
For politicians you could add incredulity, inertia, and distraction as well if you wish.
Incredulity: they lack the skills to evaluate what scientists say, so they rely on heuristics: the climate is stable. Inertia: meetings and more meetings. Distraction: there are always more visible and understandable "crises" (really, bike-shedding) that serve equally well or better.
And narcissism too: no-one honours people who prevented crises; they remember the hero of the hour. (See: the widespread belief that Y2K was a big hoax, rather than there being a day of gratitude that the world's financial systems didn't seize up for 18 months.)
My expected scenario is this: panic after a few really large weather events in the 2030s (say, 10 million or more dead in a prolonged heatwave, or a bunch of them, and/or simultaneous crop failure--down 40% or more--in 3 of the 5 major grain-growing regions of the world, twice in five years, and/or really serious flooding in major urban areas).
I expect to see the beginnings of serious government action in the 2040s. If I'm still alive.
> Scientists and engineers make really bad politicians though; they tend to say what they believe to be true.
A very dangerous statement to generalise. Because it implies that someone with a political aptitude is incapable of these trades (ie become a scientist or engineer).
>the widespread belief that Y2K was a big hoax
It was a hoax where the marketing worked to sell Y2K compliant keyboards (and toasters probably).
The main tangible piece of evidence for climate change is to say unequivocally that the global temperature went up by 1 degree by a certain date.
We can’t get beyond 2-3 degrees, 4-6 degrees will have serious consequences.
This is the one benchmark that is not ambiguous, whereas talking about polar ice caps melting (at variable rates), or global emission going up/down/stay the same is sort of ‘eh, so what’s that mean? We up 1 degree or not?’.
Things that fall under hysteria is the claim that wildfires are because of climate change, or that it’s hotter than it’s ever been in so and so place, or that hurricane season is particularly bad this year because … the boogey man climate change.
Whether it was global cooling fear in the 1960's, or the current actual climate crisis, a lot (maybe unconsciously) know they'll always somehow find ways to eat, be mobile, and find a power source for their AC.
1. climate change is real
2. it is really hard to do analysis on due to the large number of variables, uncertain assumptions and general complexity of the system
3. it will mess us the earth as we know it
4. humans have been making a large impact on climate change
5. it is also a natural process
6. being natural doesn't mean it won't fuck us up
7. people in power are not willing to act
if the usual HN smart-ass climate change denier or whatever comes at me asking for "proof", all I can say is look around.
Lots of people in power are willing to act. The problem is that in the US, the system is biased towards inaction. It takes an overwhelming majority to pass legislation. You have to control the House and 60% of the Senate and the Presidency, all at the same time. A minority willing to band together is nearly always able to prevent action.
Even when you get all of that, actually choosing an action on climate change isn't easy. It's a thorny, difficult problem. When you add in the difficulty of requiring absolute unanimity among that supermajority, it's no surprise that you can't get anything done, even if a majority of people recognize the problem and wish to act.
Why do we do nothing about climate change? We cannot. Why this deadlock? We live by Market Logic, which has no bearing on reality but is our symbolic reality because everyone acts as tho it is true, chasing admiration while simultaneously remaining completely blind to the entire process. Market Logic interdicts all human priorities. We need to think more; do less.
We have failed to act. It's basically too late for anything but drastic action, no one was willing to take smaller, less drastic actions. We need to abandon this fallacy that its all about to come together, and more to adaption and mitigation efforts.
Curious if anyone has made (or can make) a specific prediction (based on their climate models and assumptions) that can be verified in a timely manner and/or demonstrated in a repeatable experiment?
Same question for any proposed "solution".
Scientists make verifiable predictions and repeatable experiments based on causal hypotheses that are falsifiable. Politicians sell fear.
Yes, literally thousands of times on a wide range of issues.
* Predictions that increased carbon in atmosphere would lead to higher average temperatures -> has happened.
* Predictions that extreme weather events like "once in a hundred years" floods would become more common -> has happened.
* Predictions that wildfire season would start earlier in the spring and end later in the fall -> has happened.
* Predictions that we'd see reductions in glaciers and arctic ice -> has happened.
* Predictions that we'd see a collapse in biodiversity and mass extinctions -> has happened.
Scientists can't tell you exactly where an electron is and how fast it's moving, but they can still predict how it interacts with things around it.
Way too many variables, we barely understand most of the mechanisms and how they're inter connected.
All we know is that we had a kind of stable ecosystem that's being disrupted by massive amount of CO2 and other gases being introduced in the system in a relatively short amount of time.
It's a slowish process but whatever the outcome is it doesn't look like we'll be able to reverse it
How effective can these messages of torment and suffering be? To those who believe it, it causes anxiety. For those who don’t, it pushes them farther away. The smallest group are those who understand but are not swayed by emotion. Ideally, everyone is in this group.
I now believe the division over climate change is caused by the messaging. I think a gentler approach would be more effective.
Are you essentially saying that nothing could convince you of the link between extreme weather becoming common and global warming? Because you sound skeptical of the link.
The urgency is real. By the time holdouts from the big oil propaganda are convinced it will be too late. It’s likely already too late, but since there is no up to give, we shall die trying to solve this shame of our ignorant selfish generation.
Most of these climate change warnings are blaming the general public for not acting. I haven’t heard or read a study about the impact that weapons and wars on climate change.
Every now and then there is a new experiment for a new rocket or a weapon, which I believe took lots of experiments to reach the point of final release.
Aren’t these doing more harm to humanity and climate change comparing to other factors?
