Climate Change(d)?

[Angra Mainyu]

When I was a kid, that would be 60 years ago, it didn't rain in December, it snowed. The green grass went away, we got out our sleds and heavy clothes and didn't see grass again until April. It's warm and raining around here for a week but I see we're going to have low temps into the 20s again. I can hear the deniers already.

I think climate denial and covid denial travel together.

No one denies climate.

But sure, some people deny that it is changing. Some other people accept that, but they also accept absurd anti-science claims - like anti-nuclear claims, or claims about "saving the planet" , or they talk about a serious risk of extinction, etc., as if climate change were an extinction-level threat. Many of those who accept climate change seem to be acting in a religious-like manner because they also accept the false claims as above: it just happens that their religion is right about there being climate change.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But sure, some people deny that it is changing. Some other people accept that, but they also accept absurd anti-science claims - like anti-nuclear claims, or claims about "saving the planet" , or they talk about a serious risk of extinction, etc., as if climate change were an extinction-level threat. Many of those who accept climate change seem to be acting in a religious-like manner because they also accept the false claims as above: it just happens that their religion is right about there being climate change.

I'm only concerned about disruption. Extinction isn't going to happen to humans, that's a certain. But there are a lot of other life forms on the planet that don't have our ability to adapt. Many of those will become extinct. It seems easy enough to do but I guess it isn't when the name of the game seems to be conspicuous consumption. Now if only half of the humans went extinct that would be a good thing.

 

[Swammerdami]

But sure, some people deny that it is changing. Some other people accept that, but they also accept absurd anti-science claims - like anti-nuclear claims, or claims about "saving the planet" , or they talk about a serious risk of extinction, etc., as if climate change were an extinction-level threat. Many of those who accept climate change seem to be acting in a religious-like manner because they also accept the false claims as above: it just happens that their religion is right about there being climate change.

Your reasoning here might make more sense if you express it in the form of a careful syllogism. If you do, please take care in your choice of quantifiers: 'some,' 'most,' etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But sure, some people deny that it is changing. Some other people accept that, but they also accept absurd anti-science claims - like anti-nuclear claims, or claims about "saving the planet" , or they talk about a serious risk of extinction, etc., as if climate change were an extinction-level threat. Many of those who accept climate change seem to be acting in a religious-like manner because they also accept the false claims as above: it just happens that their religion is right about there being climate change.

Your reasoning here might make more sense if you express it in the form of a careful syllogism. If you do, please take care in your choice of quantifiers: 'some,' 'most,' etc.

I disagree, because it makes sense as it is, and it was not a deductive argument. It is an assessment (intuitive probabilistic assessment if you want to ask, like most of our empirical assessments) based on the behavior observed by looking at the news, reading the claims and arguments given, etc. As for the quantifiers, I used "some" and "many", which are correct. The use of "most" would require further evidence and/or analysis on my part that I have time to dedicate I'm afraid.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Swammerdami, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: Greta Thunberg's views and actions. Sure, she is only one person. But she is seen as a hero by many, who agree with the main points of her views. How many? I do not know. But it seems pretty obvious that she enjoys wide support among climate change activists. Let me point out a couple of things:


1. She insists that humanity faces an existential threat due to climate change.

For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

Or:

In March, Thunberg also criticized the Biden administration, urging it to "treat the climate crisis like a crisis." The Hill reported.

"They have said themselves that this is an existential threat, and they’d better treat it accordingly, which they are not," she added. "They are just treating the climate crisis as [if] it were a political topic among other topics."

There is no indication that she's not literally talking about a threat to the existence of humanity or at least human civilization.


2. She opposes nuclear power - which is the best answer we have (if you think otherwise, I recommend you search for bilby's posts on the matter, which are really good).

For example:

Code Red for Humanity - or Green Light for more climate destruction?

While activists battle to ensure taxonomy paves the way for real climate action, EU political leaders want to rebrand fossil gas and nuclear power as "sustainable", when they are neither sustainable nor green, argue Greta Thunberg and a group of youth climate activists.

www.euractiv.com

As climate activists have been battling to ensure taxonomy paves the way for real climate action, the “leaders” have been working hard on rebranding fossil gas and nuclear power to “sustainable”, when they are neither sustainable nor green. This could turn into a real life climate-nightmare.

She's had enough time to inform herself. Yet, that quote is from just 9 days ago, so she's not getting any better. And she has a gazillion followers.

 

[TSwizzle]

{snip}Now if only half of the humans went extinct that would be a good thing.

A rapture like cult.

 

[lpetrich]

A movie has come out on Netflix, "Don't Look Up", that is a sort of allegory for responses to climate-change concerns.

I’m a climate scientist. Don’t Look Up captures the madness I see every day | Peter Kalmus | The Guardian

The film, from director Adam McKay and writer David Sirota, tells the story of astronomy grad student Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) and her PhD adviser, Dr Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio), who discover a comet – a “planet killer” – that will impact the Earth in just over six months. The certainty of impact is 99.7%, as certain as just about anything in science.

The scientists are essentially alone with this knowledge, ignored and gaslighted by society. The panic and desperation they feel mirror the panic and desperation that many climate scientists feel. In one scene, Mindy hyperventilates in a bathroom; in another, Diabasky, on national TV, screams “Are we not being clear? We’re all 100% for sure gonna fucking die!” I can relate. This is what it feels like to be a climate scientist today.

The two astronomers are given a 20-minute audience with the president (Meryl Streep), who is glad to hear that impact isn’t technically 100% certain. Weighing election strategy above the fate of the planet, she decides to “sit tight and assess”. Desperate, the scientists then go on a national morning show, but the TV hosts make light of their warning (which is also overshadowed by a celebrity breakup story).

By now, the imminent collision with comet Diabasky is confirmed by scientists around the world. After political winds shift, the president initiates a mission to divert the comet, but changes her mind at the last moment when urged to do so by a billionaire donor (Mark Rylance) with his own plan to guide it to a safe landing, using unproven technology, in order to claim its precious metals. A sports magazine’s cover asks, “The end is near. Will there be a Super Bowl?”

It got a lot of negative reviews, like

• Don't Look Up review: Tons of critics are bashing the #1 movie on Netflix
• ‘Don’t Look Up’ Review: Tick, Tick, Kablooey - The New York Times
• Look away: why star-studded comet satire Don’t Look Up is a disaster | Don't Look Up | The Guardian
• Don’t Look Up review – an A-list apocalyptic mess | Don't Look Up | The Guardian

‘It parodies our inaction’: Don’t Look Up, an allegory of the climate crisis, lauded by activists | Climate crisis | The Guardian - getting positive reviews from them.

David Ritter, chief executive of Greenpeace Asia Pacific, says he was struck by the sense of desperation portrayed by the film’s scientists, finding the parallel with the climate crisis “very, very powerful”.

“There are tens or hundreds of thousands of people across the world who are scientists, activists, campaigners … giving their lives to this work,” Ritter said. “The sheer number of people who have asked me … what is wrong with our political leaders that they do not understand?”

Also Why Sneering Critics Dislike Netflix’s ‘Don’t Look Up,’ But Climate Scientists Love It

Perhaps that’s one reason why, since its release, climate and environmental researchers have been heaping praise on Don’t Look Up. One of the most prominent American climate scientists, Michael E. Mann, has exhorted people to see the film, writing in the Boston Globe that “McKay’s film succeeds not because it’s funny and entertaining; it’s serious sociopolitical commentary posing as comedy.”

 

[lpetrich]

Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson on Twitter: "I’ve never felt so seen as watching @LeoDiCaprio & Jennifer Lawrence play scientists warning of pending apocalypse in #DontLookUp. I was wincing, anxious, nervous sweating, and nearly shouted at the screen “Are you fucking kidding me?! Listen to the scientists!” #ClimateCrisis" / Twitter

Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson on Twitter: "Shoutout to filmmaker @GhostPanther & team for this masterpiece. And also shoutout to Adam McKay’s Twitter profile banner image. #ClimateFuturism — here for many more versions of “What if we get it right?” (pic link)" / Twitter

Daniel Bleakley on Twitter: "If you want to get a idea of what life has felt like for climate scientists and activists over the last 20 years watch @dontlookupfilm with @LeoDiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence on Netflix." / Twitter

Peter Gleick on Twitter: "This has been my pinned tweet for years, but reposted now because of #DontLookUp" / Twitter
noting
Peter Gleick on Twitter: "There's a reason every disaster movie starts with the government ignoring a scientist.
When you degrade, ignore, and dismiss the warnings of science you threaten all of us. (pic link)" / Twitter

David Ho on Twitter: "Everyone who works at a public university in the U.S. knows that the struggle is real. #DontLookUp (pix link)" / Twitter

Prof Julia ClimateAction FightFascism on Twitter: "Idly wondering how many media and political figures recognized themselves in #DontLookUp , and will go on being ever-so-slightly more self-aware cheerleaders of the apocalypse. #tuesdaymotivations lolsob" / Twitter

Looks like I may have to subscribe to Netflix again to watch that movie.

 

[bilby]

Now if only half of the humans went extinct that would be a good thing.

If we're not doing stuff for the humans, why the fuck are we doing it?

If half of humanity perishing is 'good', I am hesitant to ask what would qualify as 'bad'.

In my book, every premature death is a tragedy.

 

[Swammerdami]

Swammerdami, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: Greta Thunberg's views and actions. Sure, she is only one person. But she is seen as a hero by many, who agree with the main points of her views. How many? I do not know. But it seems pretty obvious that she enjoys wide support among climate change activists. Let me point out a couple of things:

In this post-rational world, teenagers are idolized. Kyle Rittenhouse, the cowardly vigilante, is now a hero to the right wing. Greta Thunberg is the same age as Kyle, but became interested in climate change at age 8. Does it make sense to focus on her opinions? (Maybe: She surely has a higher IQ than most climate change deniers.)

But it doesn't matter whether Greta is a genius or a moron. I don't think a political question should be decided based on which side has the stupidest supporters! (And if this were a criterion do you really think the deniers would win? )

1. She insists that humanity faces an existential threat due to climate change.
There is no indication that she's not literally talking about a threat to the existence of humanity or at least human civilization.

I don't know why we're talking about a teenager barely graduated from the equivalent of high school, but there are sober scientists with relevant PhD's who view the climate future as dire. Why not link to their views?

2. She opposes nuclear power - which is the best answer we have (if you think otherwise, I recommend you search for bilby's posts on the matter, which are really good).

I've read a bit about nuclear power. It's probably good in the short-term but there are sober experts who oppose it for good reasons. Given this controversy, it seems odd to think that "Just listen to bilby" should end the debate.

Some experts think renewable power (wind, waves, solar) is a sufficient path forward. This power is much cheaper than nuclear. Great strides are being made on the energy storage problem. And efficiency is an important (but under-emphasized) part of the solution.

If you and bilby insist that nuclear is the way to go, and I insist that I'm not sure of the answer, does that make me wrong by default? There are smarter people than me that don't know the answer either!

She's had enough time to inform herself. Yet, that quote is from just 9 days ago, so she's not getting any better. And she has a gazillion followers.

You're still talking about Greta? Donald Trump also has a gazillion supporters; should we discuss his brilliant ideas?

 

[Bomb#20]

But it doesn't matter whether Great is a genius or a moron. I don't think a political question should be decided based on which side has the stupidest supporters! (And if this were a criterion do you really think the deniers would win? )
...
You're still talking about Greta?

This is not the sort of political question that a side will win and another side will lose -- we will all win together or we will all lose together. In order for us all to win, the political question needs to be decided not based on which side's supporters are stupider but on which side's supporters need to be convinced to change their minds.

So it seems to me talking about Greta is perfectly sensible, because Greta is a spot-on microcosm of the left as a whole: she's all about the caring and the posturing and the virtue signaling and the sailboats to political conferences and the politicians making the right speeches and the international agreements and the commitments to take action and the promises to phase out carbon by 2050 and the condemnation of the stupidity of the other side and the condemnation of the moderation of her own side; but she's not all about the engineering it's going to take to turn all that --> talking <-- into a drastically reduced carbon footprint for the average human. From the outside looking in, it seems like in the mind of Greta and the typical leftist, what people everywhere need to do to save the planet is be right -- and then their rightness will somehow, perhaps by sympathetic magic, cause a carbon neutral economy to burst forth like Athena from the brow of Zeus.

So who needs to change their minds in order for the necessary engineering to take place? The climate deniers? If they change their minds we'll just have another couple billion people who are more caring and more condemning and making more promises that won't be kept. It isn't the climate deniers who are stopping the engineers from doing their job. It's the opponents of nuclear power.

If the smart global-warming-aware Democrats will change their minds and decide real live low carbon emissions are more important than make-believe fantasies of nuclear power being more dangerous than other energy sources, then the engineers will get on with decarbonizing the economy. And the stupid greenhouse-effect-denying Republicans who still haven't changed their minds won't lift a finger to stop them, because there's money to be made in generating electricity whether the climate is changing or not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know why we're talking about a teenager barely graduated from the equivalent of high school, but there are sober scientists with relevant PhD's who view the climate future as dire. Why not link to their views?

Ignorance is bliss? Maybe?

Humanity does not face an existential threat because of climate change. The consequences of inaction and denial are just like fighting another world war. Most people would rather just fight the world war. In their minds it's somehow simpler and more elegant.

 

[scombrid]

So, record all-time flooding multiple regions of the world record all-time national temperatures in multiple regions of the world, potentially the longest tornado path on record in the US, a very busy hurricane season in the Atlantic.

But climate change is a lie... or is past tense... whatever.

For the most recent two decades we have had West Palm Beach weather in Rockledge. We now grow coconuts, papaya, mango, and other tropical fruit west of IRL at nearly 28 degrees north. That is a mighty long stretch of anomalous weather if the climate hasn't changed. NWS updates its climate "norms" every 10 years based on the most recent 30 years of averages. Or local "normal" low temperature was adjusted up almost 4 degrees F. I just harvested a pineapple this morning while feeding hibiscus flower to my pet tortoise in his outdoor pen.

 

[Thomas II]

So, record all-time flooding multiple regions of the world record all-time national temperatures in multiple regions of the world, potentially the longest tornado path on record in the US, a very busy hurricane season in the Atlantic.

But climate change is a lie... or is past tense... whatever.

For the most recent two decades we have had West Palm Beach weather in Rockledge. We now grow coconuts, papaya, mango, and other tropical fruit west of IRL at nearly 28 degrees north. That is a mighty long stretch of anomalous weather if the climate hasn't changed. NWS updates its climate "norms" every 10 years based on the most recent 30 years of averages. Or local "normal" low temperature was adjusted up almost 4 degrees F. I just harvested a pineapple this morning while feeding hibiscus flower to my pet tortoise in his outdoor pen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59820999

"The coldest US state of Alaska has recorded its hottest-ever December day, amid an unusual winter warm spell.
Temperatures soared to a record 19.4C (67F) on the island of Kodiak on Sunday - almost seven degrees warmer than the state's previous high.
But elsewhere in Alaska temperatures have been plunging to record lows.
In the south-eastern town of Ketchikan, temperatures dropped to -18C (-0.4F) on 25 December - one of the town's coldest Christmas Days in the past century.
The weather extremes have prompted warnings of an "Icemageddon" from authorities, as torrents of rain and snow have left ice as hard as cement coating the roads."

 

[Elixir]

Near 39 degrees N, 8000 ft elevation here, and the ground is finally freezing.
For the first fifteen years I lived here, the ground froze by the end of October.
For the last ten, It has been getting later and later on average. Also drier. Haven't seen a 3+ foot blizzard in several years.

Weather patterns change, yeah. But when they're changing EVERYWHERE at record rates, that's climate change.

 

[steve_bank]

But,but,but here in Seattle we have had a week of record breaking hard freezes during the day!!! How can things be getting warmer?

I just don't get it.

N 39 8000ft, hmmm, that does narrow it down.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Does it make sense to focus on her opinions? (Maybe: She surely has a higher IQ than most climate change deniers.)

It does, but not because of her IQ, whatever that is.
...And now I see that B20 beat me to the answer, so I'll leave that one aside to avoid repetition.

But it doesn't matter whether Greta is a genius or a moron. I don't think a political question should be decided based on which side has the stupidest supporters! (And if this were a criterion do you really think the deniers would win? )

Well, that depends on the political question.

Here, the question I had in mind was whether there is a fairly common religion-like behavior among left-wingers who are climate change activists (LWCCA). And there seems to be, regardless of whether some climate change deniers are more stupid than the most stupid LWCCA, or whether they are more so on average, so we appear to be addressing different questions.

I don't know why we're talking about a teenager barely graduated from the equivalent of high school, but there are sober scientists with relevant PhD's who view the climate future as dire. Why not link to their views?

Because I was talking about religious-like behavior among LWCCA, not about whether the climate future is dire. However, if those scientists are talking about human extinction, that might be relevant in re the warrant of Thunberg's beliefs on that particular point, so if you have a link and you'd like to discuss it, I'm all ears.

I've read a bit about nuclear power. It's probably good in the short-term but there are sober experts who oppose it for good reasons. Given this controversy, it seems odd to think that "Just listen to bilby" should end the debate.

Well, there is of course the excellent posts by Bomb#20 too, but I think they are less frequent on this particular matter.

I disagree about whether those experts oppose it for good reasons, but I wasn't telling you to listen to bilby because he says so, of course. Rather, it's the content of the arguments that I suggested that you evaluated, and was counting on you to be persuaded.

Still, this one point you make is relevant because it goes to the rationality of Thunberg's claim that nuclear power is neither green nor sustainable (sure, in context, she did not mean to say that only about natural gas, even if she used a conjunction; she would not have said 'natural gas and solar power are neither green nor sustainable' just because the former isn't; she's condemning nuclear power too).

Some experts think renewable power (wind, waves, solar) is a sufficient path forward. This power is much cheaper than nuclear. Great strides are being made on the energy storage problem. And efficiency is an important (but under-emphasized) part of the solution.

Sufficient to what end?
If you want to slow down climate change, eventually sure. The questions are how much you slow it down, how many fatalities and how much suffering you get along the way, etc.

As for the cost, also I suggest bilby's posts on the matter, or B20's, since they have the expertise to make this case a lot better than I can.

If you and bilby insist that nuclear is the way to go, and I insist that I'm not sure of the answer, does that make me wrong by default? There are smarter people than me that don't know the answer either!

No, of course that does not make you wrong by default. It makes you wrong because the claim you are making is not true, but that is not a default. I suggested the posts because of their content, the arguments, etc., not due to any default.

But let me make a point here about Thunberg's rationality: suppose that there is indeed insufficient evidence to ascertain which one is better (not even to make a good probabilistic assessment one way or another), and appealing to experts won't help because there are enough experts on each side to ruin the argument from expertise. Then it would still be irrational on her part to claim that nuclear is so bad, and favor renewables instead. The rational course of action would be to remain undecided (of course, if that were the case, bilby and I and others would also be epistemically irrational for reckoning nuclear is clearly better, but that would not make her and other activists rational about it!).

You're still talking about Greta?

Yes, I am talking about irrational beliefs and behavior by LWCCA, and this is a prominent example given how much support her views enjoy among them.

Donald Trump also has a gazillion supporters; should we discuss his brilliant ideas?

How would that be relevant?

The fact that there are plenty of people who are not LWCCA and who have irrational views, promote bad things, etc., does not have any bearing on whether there is fairly common irrational religious-like behavior among LWCCA, in the context of their activism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know why we're talking about a teenager barely graduated from the equivalent of high school, but there are sober scientists with relevant PhD's who view the climate future as dire. Why not link to their views?

Ignorance is bliss? Maybe?

Humanity does not face an existential threat because of climate change. The consequences of inaction and denial are just like fighting another world war. Most people would rather just fight the world war. In their minds it's somehow simpler and more elegant.

It's not "ignorance is bliss". It's 'not relevant to the point I was making'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Near 39 degrees N, 8000 ft elevation here, and the ground is finally freezing.
For the first fifteen years I lived here, the ground froze by the end of October.
For the last ten, It has been getting later and later on average. Also drier. Haven't seen a 3+ foot blizzard in several years.

Weather patterns change, yeah. But when they're changing EVERYWHERE at record rates, that's climate change.

No, no, no, no, no, no. We can't be sure!

And BTW tobacco use does not increase one's chances of cancer.

 

[steve_bank]

In the news tonight. There are upsides. You will be bale op dock your boat at your Manhatten condo.

No doubt about it, changes are common that make the pandemic disruptions look like a small sneeze.

Likely collapse of world’s widest glacier could be catastrophic for sea levels, research finds

Thwaites, the widest glacier in the world, has doubled its rate of melt in the last 30 years, a researcher said.

www.nbcnews.com

An Antarctic ice shelf could crack and disintegrate within the next decade, allowing a Florida-size glacier to slide into the ocean and raising sea levels by feet, scientists warned Wednesday.

A dramatic chain reaction in the ice could occur by 2031, starting with the Thwaites Glacier, said Erin Pettit, a professor at Oregon State University who studies glacier and ice sheet dynamics.


The glacier, a river of flowing ice, is blocked from falling into the sea by the eastern ice shelf, which sits atop an underwater mountain and is disintegrating.