I guess we're gonna look back on these times 40-50 years from now in the same way we look back at doctors advertising cigarettes. And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. Great sense of legacy these people will feel by then. I have no problem feeling moral superiority in this matter, if there ever was something that would be easy to find the moral compass within it's this topic. One of the most proven scientific fields of all, showing evidence as far back as the 50s and people just act like it's up for debate. Yeah, I'll stay humble in other areas, but this high horse is quite comfy to be on.

Climate scientists who get too pessimistic argue themselves out of a job, one way or another. — unenlightened

What about climate scientists who are too optimistic? Don't they also argue themselves out of a job?

It is "safer" to just agree with the consensus. This is a negative feedback loop.

What about climate scientists who are too optimistic? Don't they also argue themselves out of a job? — Agree-to-Disagree

No, big oil pays them well.

You can find know-nothing imbeciles making statements on a topic they refuse to learn about (too hard) all the time. Easy to feel superior to them.

Take quantum physics. “All nonsense — it’s just a result of groupthink.” Boom, I’m smart and my opinion is just as valid as anyone’s.

Tobacco delayed a backlash for 30 years. — Mikie

Try over a 100 years. And really even before that it was known but tobacco companies were already peddling propaganda at the time. There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda.

There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda. — Benkei

I thought it was the 60s. But I won’t Wikipedia it— I’ll take your word for it.

1964 was the US surgeon general's report. I worked on the public awareness research for the tobacco industry during my studies as a part time paralegal.

The 60s is therefore generally considered the time a reasonable person should have been aware of the bad effects of smoking but it could've been much sooner - as early as the 1920s if there weren't so many doctors willing to promote cigarettes in return for payment.

Interesting. Well in that case, double-fuck them too.

I know that the greenhouse effect was understood back in the late 19th century, so if we take that as a starting point, it rivals tobacco.

Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"? — Tzeentch

Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. Some countries, that fortunately still haven't caught up to the schizophrenic political zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, still use their language equivalent of "global warming" instead of the more accurate "climate change", even though those countries already know that some parts of the world are becoming colder instead of warmer.

"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us, and more importantly, regardless of whether it is caused by us or not, how much can we control the climate to keep it at a range that is most beneficial to modern society.

Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. — Lionino

It's not scientifically inaccurate, it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up and the climate is changing in different ways because the effect of increased global degrees affects the balance between different regions of the world. And since society, globally, is primarily built around the climate that has been in each region for hundreds of years every society needs to adjust while those already at the hottest position will need to move.

The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate.

The only debate is how much has been caused by us — Lionino

There is no debate. It's one of the most proven scientific field of all; getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities. The only ones debating are the ones too stupid to understand everything, those chilling for the oil industry and those who have just attached the anti-climate-science identity to their general persona. The rest have known about this for a long time and been proven right over and over and over. At the moment there's so much data that anyone denying human industry and infrastructure being the cause for the global temp spikes are simply delusional.

There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase.

It's one of the most proven scientific field of all — Christoffer

getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities — Christoffer

How does one "prove" a scientific field? A theory is proven, not a whole field.
Speaking of field, meteorological science is extremely faulty. Chemistry, astronomy, physics, all of these are more reliable fields. Meteorology cannot even get the weather of next week right. The claim that meteorology is "more proven" does not pass through common sense.
Sigma scales of statistical probability? You mean the standard deviation of a bell curve? I don't see how that relates to the topic. Is there some "research paper" by someone who compares replicability of different scientific fields? Because that would be bunk.
It feels as if you are just repeating buzzwords from CNN and BCC. Or that you are not being specific at all with the terms you use.

it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up — Christoffer

The global average temperature has risen — 1 degree compared to the 20th century average. From "global warming" to "global average temperature" is a big semantic shift.

The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate. — Christoffer

Cool. Proof?

Cool. Proof? — Lionino

Go read some publications. Listen to the actual experts. There is no debate other than by those believing themselves to know more than the actual scientists who publish. I will not be baited like this, I've been in these debates for a long time and it's just not possible to convince people who think they know more about climate change and global warming than the science presents. It's like debating flat earthers, there's no point and I won't even bother putting time and effort into it, pointless. I can debate and discuss the things that matter; what to do, evaluating the possible consequences, strategies to mitigate, energy politics and stuff but I will not engage in a debate about human causes for climate change because it is already proven and I'm not gonna lower myself to that level of anti-intellectual waste of time.

Just ignore the deniers. Leave them to their slogans. “The climate is always changing!” Cool—bye!

I ask you to give proof that the terminology was changed because of people's stupidity. I imagine there was some press conference or (real) journalism of science of the 2000s and early 2010s, when "global warming" was more popular than "climate change", discussing how the terminology should be changed. So I hoped you would give me something concrete, like the aforementioned, that would convince me.

I did not get that, I got the "go read some by experts". What is it that you have been reading, when you say things such as "sigma scales of probability" and "proven scientific field", which hints at a scientific education that is not nowhere near enough to read brand new research?

Everytime people link me scientific research papers, I ask them what their qualifications are, so I don't waste my time reading something that ultimately does not prove them right.
In an ideal world, intelligent laymen would discuss scientific findings with their own qualificative limitations in mind — some fields and papers are more laymen friendly than others. But this is not an ideal world, and people, who don't even know what a p-value is, feel themselves free to flaunt content that is made by doctors and masters for other doctors and masters.



Obviously you are referring to me. Here is the funny thing, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change, or whatever histrionic label is used in the Anglosphere. I am very concerned about the environment, from the Amazon, to the water of our rivers, to the climate, to the expansion of deserts.

With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making, more like the kind who would shut down nuclear powerplants in Germany to increase coal burning instead.

Overall, it is all very tiresome, and sad.

And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. — Christoffer

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic.

Just ignore the deniers. — Mikie

There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase. — Christoffer

Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways.

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI

Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing.

ng, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change — Lionino

Of course not. You are just asking legitimate questions about the science and trotting out fashionable lines from climate “skeptics.” Carry on.



Yes, and it’s great to have humanitarians like you to swoop in with your Dr. Phil analyses on hurt feelings. If only we could all model your approach: smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.

Incidentally, sarcastic comments like yours are also “really really” helpful. Way to lead by example. Good work.

You should know better.

Instead, you're the one with the smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.

If you really care about global heating and the future of humanity, then how come you're willing to invest so little into finding ways to effect change in people?

The mechanics of what might be successful strategies to counteract global heating are not rocket science. Cutting down on fossil fuels etc. That's not the issue.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.

I agree with the poster above:

With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making — Lionino

As long as you can blame global heating on people being stupid, ignorant, and such, that's it for you, you have finished your job.

Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing. — baker

So are Boomers, but they vote. If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it.

If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it. — RogueAI

Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.

And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet.

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet. — RogueAI

Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

Who raised these young people?

Good point.

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI

Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come. And I've tried to challenge them and say that since change takes time, especially in political arenas, they have to go into politics now. I'm not sure if it's the adults and older people's failure to communicate the importance of politics or if it's an utter lack of faith in political influence, but they don't seem to understand that they can absolutely make a difference if they fight for it.

I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts. They're not building a future other than their own funeral.

Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways. — baker

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.

Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.

The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes.

This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.

Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come — Christoffer

I remember talking with members of the Beat generation in the 1950s who expressed the same philosophy. But a few years later, when they began being drafted for Vietnam, they came alive.

you're the one — baker

Okay! Bye.

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are. — Christoffer

Yes.

If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims.

Martin Luther King — same deal. But a little nicer. Less offensive to privileged white people. But oh yeah, he was despised and killed anyway.

It’s almost as if focusing on tone and niceness and feelings and moral “objectivity” is just another way of avoiding facts, problems, and solutions.

Anyway — yes, please excuse me if I have zero tolerance for ignorance and propaganda on this issue anymore. If you’ve not taken the maybe 4-5 hours it takes to familiarize yourself with the issue beyond the slogans, then you can indeed fuck off. Especially when you come with anything other than a willingness to learn. This is science, not psychotherapy.

One’s failure to understand such an important issue is, at this point, inexcusable and immoral. If that attitude is too harsh for some — too bad.

Easy to feel superior to them. — Mikie

Be careful that you don't fall off your high horse. It is better to have your feet on the ground, rather than your head in the clouds.

Also better to be honest and moral instead of dangerously, irresponsibly ignorant. To each his own though.