I think the combination of climate change news and Coronavirus news demonstrate so well how poorly humans respond to non-immediate versus immediate threats. Even when the non-immediate threat is potentially huge.
Climate scientists should pay close attention to how much carbon emissions were cut due to corona virus and if it had any impact on climate changes. The world wide economy pretty much tanked for a few weeks, flights were grounded and people reduced carbon emission as a result. If none of this had any impact on climate change, nothing we can do voluntarily will ever have. Lastly, climate scientists should not be flying in jet planes to conferences.
I simply fail to understand how, despite the rising mountain of evidence, some people still are able to deny the reality of the climate crisis we're facing.
Even if you have ideological or economical reasons for wanting to believe the climate crisis to be a hoax - at one point or another the drive for self-preservation simply has to kick in, doesn't it?
Ever and ever again when I see some new dire study about how our predatory exploitation of our ecological support system is degrading its capability to actually support us, I think to myself: "This is it. Now they just have to finally start supporting measures to stop killing ourselves." But I always get disappointed - there are still way too many people that absolutely fail to grasp how terminal a situation we're rushing into.
The human capability for self-deception is truly amazing.
It's really pretty simple - the prognosticators of doom have a very poor track record. I posted this elsewhere in the thread, so apologize for the spam for any readers who saw it twice:
Personally, I don't believe climate change is a hoax. There's ample evidence indicating climate change is real. But I am certainly convinced climate crisis is mostly nonsense. And I believe most "solutions" proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty.
And thus, statements like this one you made, from my point-of-view, are mostly hysterical:
Ever and ever again when I see some new dire study about how our predatory exploitation of our ecological support system is degrading its capability to actually support us, I think to myself: "This is it. Now they just have to finally start supporting measures to stop killing ourselves." But I always get disappointed - there are still way too many people that absolutely fail to grasp how terminal a situation we're rushing into.
I'm not sure there have been any studies on it but it makes sense that cognitive dissonance in humans would be a genetic advantage over other species. It allows us to acknowledge unfortunate truths like death and existentialism without driving us to insanity.
My personal cognitive dissonance is the optimism that we'll at least be able to slow climate change despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. If I lose that optimism, I would enter a very dark place in my own mind.
> Even if you have ideological or economical reasons for wanting to believe the climate crisis to be a hoax - at one point or another the drive for self-preservation simply has to kick in, doesn't it?
Eventually it will happen. But then it might already be too late. People live in their filter bubbles and these can be really hard to burst. Especially, when you deal with ideology and an us-versus-them mentality, where the opposite party is for climate protection and you are in the climate change hoax camp.
Same deal really - we are so comfy deluding ourselves, have so very much forgotten that we are subject to the laws of nature, we have become unable to reject the delusions of infinite growth, infinite resources, perpetually funded pension systems - all pyramid schemes of lies perpetuated for generations now.
Covid19 is running for president by sending a reminder that reality still exists, outside of our carefully constructed fantasy of an economy and society.
I doubt it. If and when the virus passes, people will revert to their previous patterns. This is seen as a temporary inconvenience by the general population. Why change their behaviour moving forward?
Pretty sure that graph shows that the sea ice over the last 5 years has been significantly less than the mean value from 1981-2000, even if you allow for 2 standard deviations from the mean.
I'm not quite sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic, but this comment is actually very typical for people that either fail to grasp how the climate crisis is changing our climatic and atmospheric weather patterns or are willfully blind to the implications that the climate crisis have on the even near future.
"If that holds true it would put 400 million people at risk of annual coastal flooding by 2100," said Prof Shepherd.
At least the prognosticators are getting smart enough to make sure their predictions can't be assessed until after they're gone. Means no egg on your face like all the doomsayers of times past...
And the lede, "give more money to programs I think are important", is buried:
His particular concern is to see successors to the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 satellite and the American space agency's IceSat-2 platform.
These models observe more of the ice sheets than other satellites because they fly orbits that go very close to the north and south poles.
"I fear we will soon be back to the situation of the early 2000s when we had to make do with missions that were not really designed to look at polar regions. We'll be doing our best despite the absence of the data we really require - unfortunately. But we've been there before."
My reflexive skepticism at the climate panic du jour aside, if you're convinced disaster is certain if we don't do something and if that something necessarily reduces the quality of life of everyone around you, you will fail. I, and billions of others, will refuse to go along.
All reasonable, sensible, attainable solutions are technological.
> In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change
Take it from the horse's mouth; these guys had no reason to propagate some kind of hoax, quite the opposite. We've known that since the 1970s that climate change is the likely outcome.
And you know what; climate change has arrived and - surprise! - it's a climate crisis!
According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These are undeniable facts.
So, the people that have been warning us for 50 years were .. actually correct. Who would have thought that science could work!
[+] [-] anoplus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innagadadavida|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gravityloss|6 years ago|reply
If you really want to look at the risks, see Eric Rignot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlsizBRG5w
Multi-meter rise by 2100 is possible. Glacier melting could be very nonlinear.
[+] [-] esarbe|6 years ago|reply
Even if you have ideological or economical reasons for wanting to believe the climate crisis to be a hoax - at one point or another the drive for self-preservation simply has to kick in, doesn't it?
Ever and ever again when I see some new dire study about how our predatory exploitation of our ecological support system is degrading its capability to actually support us, I think to myself: "This is it. Now they just have to finally start supporting measures to stop killing ourselves." But I always get disappointed - there are still way too many people that absolutely fail to grasp how terminal a situation we're rushing into.
The human capability for self-deception is truly amazing.
[+] [-] trentnix|6 years ago|reply
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...
Personally, I don't believe climate change is a hoax. There's ample evidence indicating climate change is real. But I am certainly convinced climate crisis is mostly nonsense. And I believe most "solutions" proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty.
And thus, statements like this one you made, from my point-of-view, are mostly hysterical:
Ever and ever again when I see some new dire study about how our predatory exploitation of our ecological support system is degrading its capability to actually support us, I think to myself: "This is it. Now they just have to finally start supporting measures to stop killing ourselves." But I always get disappointed - there are still way too many people that absolutely fail to grasp how terminal a situation we're rushing into.
[+] [-] Justsignedup|6 years ago|reply
We rely on a thing. As a society our entire society is built around it. Regardless of why.
We later find out that thing is bad.
Lots of rich people will lose money and entire cultures have to change. This won't work. Deny.
If the problem will hit us in 50 years then we can procrastinate till we're dead. Then someone else will panic and deal with it.
The problem is there's no easy solution to this. None. It all takes decades to have an effect. And thus the problem.
[+] [-] caust1c|6 years ago|reply
My personal cognitive dissonance is the optimism that we'll at least be able to slow climate change despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. If I lose that optimism, I would enter a very dark place in my own mind.
[+] [-] Gravityloss|6 years ago|reply
The whole climate denialism machine utilizes the same mechanisms and even the same people as the tobacco one before it.
[+] [-] vaylian|6 years ago|reply
Eventually it will happen. But then it might already be too late. People live in their filter bubbles and these can be really hard to burst. Especially, when you deal with ideology and an us-versus-them mentality, where the opposite party is for climate protection and you are in the climate change hoax camp.
[+] [-] hatenberg|6 years ago|reply
Same deal really - we are so comfy deluding ourselves, have so very much forgotten that we are subject to the laws of nature, we have become unable to reject the delusions of infinite growth, infinite resources, perpetually funded pension systems - all pyramid schemes of lies perpetuated for generations now.
Covid19 is running for president by sending a reminder that reality still exists, outside of our carefully constructed fantasy of an economy and society.
[+] [-] nesky|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
The best cure for disappointment and despair is action. Go out, join like-minded people, and rebel.
[+] [-] ewfwfewefewfwef|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnsa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fasicle|6 years ago|reply
I assume there will be a lot less flights, cars on the road etc. when cities start getting shut down.
[+] [-] kohanz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _0ffh|6 years ago|reply
Edit: Reference: https://www.businessinsider.de/international/coronavirus-air...
[+] [-] francisofascii|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xbmcuser|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drenginian|6 years ago|reply
Thumbs up for the 21st century what a corker.
[+] [-] esarbe|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sproketboy|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lazyjones|6 years ago|reply
https://i1.wp.com/ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_...
[+] [-] ourlordcaffeine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philbarr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esarbe|6 years ago|reply
Sad.
[+] [-] tzs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trentnix|6 years ago|reply
At least the prognosticators are getting smart enough to make sure their predictions can't be assessed until after they're gone. Means no egg on your face like all the doomsayers of times past...
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...
And the lede, "give more money to programs I think are important", is buried:
His particular concern is to see successors to the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 satellite and the American space agency's IceSat-2 platform.
These models observe more of the ice sheets than other satellites because they fly orbits that go very close to the north and south poles.
"I fear we will soon be back to the situation of the early 2000s when we had to make do with missions that were not really designed to look at polar regions. We'll be doing our best despite the absence of the data we really require - unfortunately. But we've been there before."
My reflexive skepticism at the climate panic du jour aside, if you're convinced disaster is certain if we don't do something and if that something necessarily reduces the quality of life of everyone around you, you will fail. I, and billions of others, will refuse to go along.
All reasonable, sensible, attainable solutions are technological.
[+] [-] esarbe|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...
> In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change
Take it from the horse's mouth; these guys had no reason to propagate some kind of hoax, quite the opposite. We've known that since the 1970s that climate change is the likely outcome.
And you know what; climate change has arrived and - surprise! - it's a climate crisis!
According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These are undeniable facts.
So, the people that have been warning us for 50 years were .. actually correct. Who would have thought that science could work!