"major, interconnected nonlinear changes
That's the scientific term for "shit hitting the fan".
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
60 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2307 readers
130 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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."
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"
I love the concept of geoengineering, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to not address the problem
frozen crackers?
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
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?
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.
Exactly. They're exaggerating to persuade the government to do something. But we don't look at the intent, we look at the effect. The effect is division. Because what the liberals cleverly do is they move the discussion from the solution to the belief. So it's never "climate change is real - should we do nuclear or solar?" it's "is climate change real?" that's their trap. It's not me that frames the discussion, it's the "powers that be". They frame it as "we need to convince people it is happening" rather than "it's happening, we need to convince people to adopt nuclear".
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.
It is worth noting though that even though life has navigated many challenges, extinctions do happen.
It's also worth nothing we're already in an extinction event, and our planet has only had something like four prior major extinction events in its history
Indeed, we shouldn't kid ourselves that this will all just blow over.
If I see someone shooting up a street, should I not call for help because I personally can't stop it?
Depends on who are you gonna call and if they will make the situation worse.
Obviously I'm going to call a motorcycle stuntman.
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".
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.