- cross-posted to:
- climatecrisis
- collapse@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- climatecrisis
- collapse@sopuli.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
major, interconnected nonlinear changes
I have been studying systems theory recently, and “interconnected nonlinear changes” is always code for “wildly unstable”. It’s not usually even possible/feasible to control these changes, so people who believe that Geo-engineering will save are probably being delusional.
Geoengineering is just another version of “we’ll invent some future technology that will solve all of this.”
I love the concept of geoengineering, but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not address the problem
Agreed. I’ve always read geo engineering to be up there with carbon capture as bullshit.
Even the “modest” cloud seeding or reflective crap in the atmosphere had the addendum of making enormous chunks of the global south unlivable. Which makes them read more as fantasy implements of mass genocide than anything remotely palliative.
I implore you to not dismiss carbon capture as a whole as bullshit. Don’t let crackkkers make you think it’s a magic “solution”
frozen crackers?
"major, interconnected nonlinear changes
That’s the scientific term for “shit hitting the fan”.
All the downvotes to my posts, yet nobody can explain how I’m wrong.
Hey, listen up, here’s some political education. These climate scientists are experts at outlining the problems, but why don’t they ever advocate for a solution that seems obvious? If we truly are heading towards a catastrophe, then that means we should reduce our energy expenditure massively, start scaling back unnecessary production, start actively scrubbing carbon, stop the deforestation for cattle farming, and so on.
But you’re not going to see the IPCC or any climate scientist say it. Why? Because liberal capitalism relies on infinite growth, and scientists aren’t going to go against the mainstream liberal view. So either they don’t believe in what they’re saying or they do believe but they’re too scared to rock the boat and ruin their livelihood, they’re either liars or cowards.
It’s like the driver of the car you’re in saying “We need to stop or we’re all gonna fall off a cliff!” And you’re left there wondering “Wait a minute, but you’re driving the car, why don’t you just stop?”
Keep agreeing with liberals, I’m sure you’ll convince them to become communists one day. lol
Something I haven’t seen anybody mention in this discussion is that the AMOC has already weakened and created a “cold spot” over the northern Atlantic.
I mean two things can be true at the same time. Your characterization of the western scientific community is very much correct. These people are largely cowards who do not dare question the system that’s the root cause of the problems. However, that doesn’t invalidate their research regarding the effects of global warming. They’re able to correctly identify the problem, and they’re just too cowardly to articulate the necessary solution.
They’re able to correctly identify the problem
Why identify a problem if they’re not going to offer any solutions? That’s why I think “reports” like these are politically motivated. Liberals use these reports to then engage in performative gestures like taking working class taxpayer money to fund endless panels and committees whose only solution is to set emission targets. Then when they meet next year they get to wag a finger at every country that didn’t meet the target.
How many are talking about nuclear power? In Germany, the “Greens” (green wow so environmental!) are the ones who shut down nuclear power plants and are now supervising the restarting of coal power plants. But I bet you anything the Greens are most vocal about climate change and the IPCC reports.
I just hate hypocrites, that’s all. When I see a hypocrite, I see a liar, why should I entertain what they have to say?
If I see someone shooting up a street, should I not call for help because I personally can’t stop it?
A lot of people go into science because they genuinely enjoy doing research. They are realizing the implications of their research, and that is scaring them. I don’t think this is a big mystery or conspiracy by the scientific community. These people aren’t part of the decision making process, and as you pointed out, if they start saying things that are too radical for liberals then they’re just going to be cancelled. So, they speak out tepidly hoping that will make some difference.
It’s also worth noting that this research is also happening outside the west. There appears to be a global consensus on the broad problems resulting from climate change. For example, I haven’t seen scientists from China saying anything radically different on the subject.
if they start saying things that are too radical for liberals then they’re just going to be cancelled. So, they speak out tepidly hoping that will make some difference.
As I recall, this was a concern going back to the late 80s, when the first waves of international attention to the problem were getting started. Some climate scientists thought that if they made too dire of predictions and called for too drastic of action they would get essentially written off as cranks. The communication strategy they tried didn’t work, of course, but that doesn’t mean a more radical communication strategy would have succeeded. The world’s economy literally and financially is deeply enmeshed with fossil fuels – it was always going to be a herculean task to change that.
Exactly, the whole society is structured around consumerism. There’s no path towards meaningful action within this framework, and questioning capitalism isn’t allowed.
A lot of people go into science because they genuinely enjoy doing research.
Definitely. Those are the people sitting in the labs crunching numbers. But you also can’t deny that as time goes by many lose the spark. I’m not blaming the individuals, that’s just how the science-industrial complex gets them. To continue the research, they need grants, to get grants they need to publish and publish results. This is why there’s a reproducibility crisis in science. I’m sure many people become cops for “good” reasons too, but the system doesn’t allow you to be a good cop.
they speak out tepidly hoping that will make some difference.
Why can’t I call them out for it without being called a climate change denier?
Science gave us: asylums/prisons for the “insane”, lobotomies, anti-women diagnoses like “hysteria”, phrenology and other racial science, and the list goes on. So yeah, scientists need to do way more than say “The science is settled!” to (re)gain people’s trust.
There appears to be a global consensus on the broad problems resulting from climate change.
Nobody denies that. But there’s a difference between saying “problems resulting from climate change” and “THE CLIMATE IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE IN THE NEXT 75 YEARS AND WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!”
Why can’t I believe there will be problems but not believe that the world will end?
The biggest effect one can see is the migration from the global south where droughts and warmth are destroying crops. Many places on the planet are becoming and will become very challenging to live in. This is why The West is building a wall around the global south. But again, this is rarely discussed in favour of “climate collapse” and “the temperature is gonna go up by 2°C”, both vague, unactionable statements.
Why can’t I call them out for it without being called a climate change denier?
I think that’s a very valid call out actually. And I’ve already agreed that they fail to articulate any tangible action to address the problem. This is precisely what we should be focusing on in my opinion. If things are as bad as the scientists say they are, then we need to start talking about real tangible solutions which involve moving away from capitalism and growth oriented economy.
I don’t think the world is going to end either, but thing is that we’re in uncharted territory. Nobody knows how bad things will get, but there are a lot of reasons to believe t hat there will be very serious disasters. In fact, we’re already seeing them happening each and every year on a phenomenal scale.
I think you’re completely correct that food supply will likely be one of the major problems going forward, and that will cause mass migrations and wars as people fight over remaining habitable areas of the planet. This will also lead to a break down of global supply chains, and that’s going to be a very bad news for western countries that have become largely deindustrialized.
Also worth noting that it’s absolutely not a given that things will be better in western countries than in the global south. The global south is already close to peak global temperature, so there isn’t going to be a huge amount of fluctuation. However, it’s the cooler climates that have to deal with higher temperature gradients, and that’s what tends to cause a lot of the disasters. This can already be seen with massive forest fires across US and Canada in the past couple of years.
If things are as bad as the scientists say they are, then we need to start talking about real tangible solutions which involve moving away from capitalism and growth oriented economy.
Exactly. When I ask “Why should I believe them?” I don’t mean they’re lying, I mean what have they done to make me believe what they are saying is true? Calling me a science denier is not enough. You brought up China. China is doing everything the West says they want to do without the alarmism. So it makes me think the alarmism is simply political performance.
there are a lot of reasons to believe t hat there will be very serious disasters
Yes. I’m originally from the Mediterranean region, every year there’s been a growing amount of forest fires. Where I live (West/North Europe) has been getting “Mediterranean” summers with random shit like 2ft of snow in April. I’m not blind to the problems. But I’m also not blind to the fact Earth has been here for billions of years, and supported life for hundreds of millions of years. I’m not arrogant enough to think that the world will end if I buy a plastic bag.
And that’s the crux of the issue for me. They focus on “emissions” and “atmospheric temperatures” (directly affected by emissions), so what it does is just prevent investment in “non-green” energy which translates to keeping the “developing world” underdeveloped. Don’t quote me on this, but I think the US has greatly reduced how much they invest in “non-green” energy so underdeveloped countries in Africa are shit out of luck.
it’s the cooler climates that have to deal with higher temperature gradients, and that’s what tends to cause a lot of the disasters
Yup. Cause the changes in temperature are so great. If the temperature of the sea goes up a few degrees, coral dies. I’ve seen the white coral with my own eyes. I’ve dived and seen fields of dead coral that stretches for kilometers.
I just don’t think the scientists who wrote that open letter are genuine. That’s it. And usually I have a good sense for that sort of thing.
China is doing everything the West says they want to do without the alarmism. So it makes me think the alarmism is simply political performance.
I too would be less alarmist about climate change if my government was taking significant steps to address it.
So it makes me think the alarmism is simply political performance.
I very much agree with you that the discussion in the west is largely performative. We can see it with stuff like tariffs on Chinese EVs, solar panels, and so on as well. Clearly western governments see economic warfare as being more important than addressing the climate crisis. We also see resistance towards practical solutions like nuclear power. Germany is a perfect example where they dismantled nuclear industry and now use coal instead. The fact that China is pushing the transition without the panic is a strong indicator that they believe that it’s possible to navigate the crisis without our civilization collapsing.
It is worth noting though that even though life has navigated many challenges, extinctions do happen. And life forms absolutely can bring about their own demise as seen with the Great Oxidation Event. If our activity is changing the climate at a rate that complex organisms aren’t able to adapt to, then we could trigger an extinction event as well. It’s going to be little consolation to us that life will continue on in a different form afterwards.
That said, you are absolutely correct that the west is using the climate crisis as a political vehicle to justify why the rest of the world can’t develop the way the west did. This very much needs to be called out. What we really should be saying is that the west carries the most responsibility for the crisis historically, and people living in the west are consuming disproportionate amount of energy today. So, the west needs to own majority of the responsibility.
Regarding the paper, I think there is some evidence that AMOC collapse could happen, and it will be bad news for Europe. That, of course, doesn’t mean the paper isn’t politically motivated.
but why don’t they ever advocate for a solution that seems obvious?
They do. All sorts of climate scientists have been telling us to cut emissions since the 1970s.
If we truly are heading towards a catastrophe, then that means we should reduce our energy expenditure massively, start scaling back unnecessary production, start actively scrubbing carbon, stop the deforestation for cattle farming, and so on.
As a person who directly works alongside liberal scientists, I can tell you with 100% certainty that this is also what the liberal scientists want. The problem with liberal scientists is not that they do not understand the science behind climate change, but they don’t understand the politics behind it.
And you’re left there wondering “Wait a minute, but you’re driving the car, why don’t you just stop?”
Scientists are not driving the car. I am not saying that if they were, we would be living in utopia, but bourgeois politicians are big fans of ignoring the advice of scientists, except for when it suits them.
All sorts of climate scientists have been telling us to cut emissions since the 1970s.
Saying “cut emissions” just doesn’t cut it. They’ve been saying cut emissions for 50 years, yet emissions have only increased.
The problem with liberal scientists is not that they do not understand the science behind climate change, but they don’t understand the politics behind it.
Then they have no business writing open letters to politicians. You seem to think I disagree with the overall idea of global warming/climate change. I don’t, I have trouble with scientists who write end of the world predictions with their right hand and passing the collection box with their left. How is that not considered grifting?
Just because what they’re saying might be truthful, doesn’t mean that they are telling the truth. Nobody is denying the climate is changing and it is getting warmer, but I don’t think their doomsday predictions are true. Not even predictions, but “medium confidence in climate not collapsing”.
Science increasingly confirms
“Science did not respond to a request for comments before publication.”
These scientists are never going to regain the trust of the public as long as they consider and present “science” as this infallible entity that exists separate from humans.
If I were one of the ministers this letter was sent to, I’d be like “Science confirms? Nah nah nah, who did the study, I want to see it, I want to talk to the person who made the models.”
Despite significant research into the possibility and mechanisms of a collapse, the probability of such an occurrence remains highly uncertain. The purpose of this letter is to draw attention to the fact that only “medium confidence” in the AMOC not collapsing is not reassuring, and clearly leaves open the possibility of an AMOC collapse during this century.
lmao. The more I read reports like these, the less I believe them. They clearly want increased funding so they start screaming about the end of the world.
People need to remember that most of these scientists are liberals and socdems with a political agenda.
Science increasingly confirms
It’s poor wording on their part, but these scientists are not philosophers.
If I were one of the ministers this letter was sent to, I’d be like “Science confirms? Nah nah nah, who did the study, I want to see it, I want to talk to the person who made the models.”
There is no one person who did climate modeling and studies. Thr field is gargantuan in size.
Lmao. The more I read reports like these, the less I believe them.
On what basis? That the vibes are off? What actual concrete disagreement do you have with this report?
They clearly want increased funding so they start screaming about the end of the world.
Climate change denialism? In my leftist online space? More likely than you think.
It’s poor wording on their part, but these scientists are not philosophers.
If they’re too dumb to form a proper sentence, why should I listen to them on more complicated matters? Or should we assume they’re not idiots and they know exactly what they are saying?
There is no one person who did climate modeling and studies. Thr field is gargantuan in size.
Lots of room for error. Look up the “reproducibility crisis in science”.
On what basis? That the vibes are off? What actual concrete disagreement do you have with this report?
On the basis of them saying it’s unlikely to happen… but there’s a chance! (jimcarreydumbdumber.jpg)
Despite significant research into the possibility and mechanisms of a collapse, the probability of such an occurrence remains highly uncertain. The purpose of this letter is to draw attention to the fact that only “medium confidence” in the AMOC not collapsing is not reassuring, and clearly leaves open the possibility of an AMOC collapse during this century. And there is even greater likelihood that a collapse is triggered this century but only fully plays out in the next.
“possibility”, “probability is highly uncertain”, “medium confidence is not reassuring”, “fully plays out in the next”…
Tell me, why do you believe them without reflecting on what they’re saying critically?
Science worship and liberal buzzwords? On my leftist forum? It’s more likely than you think!
(btw, I have a masters degree in Philsophy of Science, you can’t assume that everyone who is skeptical of a claim does so from ignorance)
I’m not denying climate change, I’m denying that liberal scientists writing the paper are writing it out of altruism and genuine concern rather than personal politics/gain. I’m a cynic, if anything.
You’re really showing your ass here
On the basis of them saying it’s unlikely to happen… but there’s a chance!
So scientists shouldn’t warn public officials of catastrophic events just because there is a chance they might not happen?
“possibility”, “probability is highly uncertain”, “medium confidence is not reassuring”
Bro is OK with us playing Russian roulette with the biosphere.
Tell me, why do you believe them without reflecting on what they’re saying critically?
Because I have seen models and reports myself. Not necessarily the ones produced by these exact people (I don’t remember the names), but I have read many reports of a possible AMOC collapse.
Furthermore, this kind of phrasing is exactly the kind of phrasing I use in my scientific reports regardless of how confident I am in my results because this kind of phrasing is how we are taught to write about science. This kind of “safe” wording is default because scientists aren’t writers or philosophers and communicating to laymen is hard.
I’m denying that liberal scientists writing the paper are writing it out of altruism and genuine concern rather than personal politics/gain.
Attacking people’s sincerity and goodwill based on prejudices (and increadibly flimsy ones at that) is cynicism, I know. And this kind of cynicism is lazy and deeply idealistic.
So scientists shouldn’t warn public officials of catastrophic events just because there is a chance they might not happen?
Should they write an “open letter” for every single catastrophic event that might happen?
Open letter to the ministers of the world: Are you doing enough against the possible zombie threat?!
Bro is OK with us playing Russian roulette with the biosphere.
Amazing argument, liberals should just hold the world hostage until we do as they say… speaking of which, what solutions do the climate scientists propose? It’s gonna be more “goals” that no country will achieve (except the Cubans). Funny how Western media didn’t sing praises for Cuba for reaching all the agreed upon goals. It’s almost as if it’s not about the environment at all!
Furthermore, this kind of phrasing is exactly the kind of phrasing I use in my scientific reports regardless of how confident I am in my results because this kind of phrasing is how we are taught to write about science. This kind of “safe” wording is default because scientists aren’t writers or philosophers and communicating to laymen is hard.
http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/new
“We measured…”, “We analysed…”, " We derived…"
Funny, cause I was taught that scientific papers and reports are written in the first person singular or plural.
You can make the argument that this “open letter” is for laymen. But 1) these are government ministers, you’d expect them to know a bit more than the average layman, 2) based on their rhetoric, the letter is meant to persuade rather than inform, there is a difference.
Attacking people’s sincerity and goodwill based on prejudices
Prejudices? It’s not prejudice, people doing things out of self-interest is a fact of life. As communists we think the working class should take power because that is in the interest of working class people, not because it is the “right” thing or the “moral” thing to do. The capitalist does capitalist things not because they’re a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, but because it is in their interest to do so.
It is analytical philosophy beloved by the liberals that claims humans can do things “objectively”, but Marxist philosophy and continental philosophy in general recognises that every human acts and perceives subjectively. You cannot separate personal motivations from the things that people do. This is how you get people do commit atrocities – “I don’t want to do this, but I have to do this”.
Should they write an “open letter” for every single catastrophic event that might happen?
Yes
Are you doing enough against the possible zombie threat?!
This is why you come off like a climate change denier. Are you actually insinuating that the collapse of the AMOC is as unlikely as a zombie outbreak?
Because the report actually states that the IPCC category of “medium confidence” is applied to the prediction the AMOC won’t collapse in this century. And the open letter is published because the scientists believe that the IPCC has underestimated the risks.
liberals should just hold the world hostage until we do as they say
Funny you say that since China is the one country in the world doing the most to keep warming below 2 C. Their work on developing renewable is why we even have a chance of succeeding, while the liberal countries dropped the ball big time.
Funny, cause I was taught that scientific papers and reports are written in the first person singular or plural.
How is first person or third person relevant?
But 1) these are government ministers, you’d expect them to know a bit more than the average layman,
For a cynic, you overestimate government ministers quite highly.
people doing things out of self-interest is a fact of life.
It is not. In fact, the idea that everyone acts in naked self interest all the time is a liberal delusion. Are you going to tell me that all of the communists who sacrificed their lives to create the PRC and USSR did so out of selfishness?
Are you actually insinuating that the collapse of the AMOC is as unlikely as a zombie outbreak?
No, it’s just as likely. It was to illustrate a point that there’s many “possible catastrophes” waiting for us and governments should be prepared for all of them. But writing sensationalist articles predicting the end of the world is not how it’s done. They want to increase anxiety, so people become scared and start making dumb decisions, like mob mentality. The downvotes on my post prove my point. People are confused and scared and are going to do whatever the closest perceived authority tells them.
Because the report actually states that the IPCC category of “medium confidence” is applied to the prediction the AMOC won’t collapse in this century. And the open letter is published because the scientists believe that the IPCC has underestimated the risks.
Yes, exactly. Regular doomsday predictions aren’t bringing in the money they used to, gotta turn it up to 11. My favourite part is how they say that it can collapse this century, but it won’t be apparent until the next century (when conveniently all the undersigned scientists will be dead).
Funny you say that since China is the one country in the world doing the most to keep warming
Without writing a single open letter?! I don’t believe it.
Their work on developing renewable is why we even have a chance of succeeding
You’re making it sound like the only motivation a country can have for switching to renewables+nuclear is “to save the environment” (or some other slogan), but consider this: renewables decrease the amount of CO and CO2 in the air, China has problems with air quality; renewables and nuclear reduce dependence on oil trade, increasing self-suffiency and protecting from sudden price increases of oil, etc. China is also producing the most coal plants in the world too. You shouldn’t assume just because someone does what you’d do that they’re motivated by the same things.
How is first person or third person relevant?
“We” or “I” is a personal pronoun that refers to a group of people or person. Saying “Science confirms…” is giving agency to something that exists only in the abstract ans therefore cannot confirm or deny. They didn’t write “Scientists from this and that university confirmed…”
Are you going to tell me that all of the communists who sacrificed their lives to create the PRC and USSR did so out of selfishness?
Why else? They certainly didn’t do it so that someone would praise them online for it a hundred years later. Also, most people don’t do things thinking they will certainly die, they do them regardless of the possibility of death. And yes, they did it to make a better life for themselves, their families, their friends, community and children.
For example, I pick up garbage on the street where I live out of purely selfish reasons, not for the environment, not because I hate littering, not because I want to make the world a better place, but because I love there and I don’t want the place I live to be littered with garbage, it looks bad.
If everyone started looking out for their actual interests and started acting selfishly, we’d have full communism in a week. We don’t have communism precisely because people are convinced to act against their own interest by ideology.
The biosphere has literally billions of tons of carbon already. Limiting excess carbon is not a bad idea, especially when it throws the whole system into balance.
Nearly no scientists are making doomsday predictions either, and that’s a bad thing. Even most scientists tend to underestimate the present danger of the current situation.
How do you not see that:
a major environmental change happening is just as likely as a zombie outbreak, an entirely fictional threat
Is just point blank climate change denial?
