What's the strategy to prevent Covid-type denial when the climate change fight gets serious?

[Max_S]

@Velocity

What’s the strategy to prevent a repeat of Covid-type denialism when that happens?

One strategy is to say, screw what you think, I say we need to do X, my opinion matters more than yours, so we’re doing X.

Works for all kinds of denialism, and I would recommend this strategy if possible.

~Max

[Monty]

@Cheesesteak

You already researched this topic and failed to account for thermal expansion, a concept covered in high school chemistry classes. You’re not a climatologist, or an oceanographer, you don’t have a PhD, your work isn’t going to be peer reviewed by a hundred other PhD’s.

Why trust your work more than theirs?

This is an enormous issue in the climate change fight, or the covid fight. People who think their personal research is more reliable than the scientific community, when they have no training, or little training in research.

Friend of mine sent this to me a week ago.

Conspiracy Theory Defined:

1. A belief that a consensus of the world’s scientific experts missed something they’ve spent their lives researcing–that you were able to uncover in seventeen minutes due to superior Googling skills.

2. A belief that decades of medical research, carried out by people committed to caring for humanity–are secretly and irredeemably evil–and have been exposed by random people you’ve never heard of, making claims with no evidence, on sites with dubious credibility.

Source: The Subversive Lens

[Princhester]

This would have to be one of the most hilariously meta OPs I’ve ever read.

An OP that says “what are we going to do when denialism starts about Issue X” when:

• denialism about Issue X has been going on for more than a decade, and

• discussion about that denialism has been going on for about as long.

The answer by the way is that many if not most of us are going to accept the four stage strategy:

The Four Stage Strategy.

[wolfpup]

@Cheesesteak

@HoneyBadgerDC

I am not so sure you are correct but I will take that seriously and research it.

You already researched this topic and failed to account for thermal expansion, a concept covered in high school chemistry classes. You’re not a climatologist, or an oceanographer, you don’t have a PhD, your work isn’t going to be peer reviewed by a hundred other PhD’s.

Why trust your work more than theirs?

This is an enormous issue in the climate change fight, or the covid fight. People who think their personal research is more reliable than the scientific community, when they have no training, or little training in research.

Just want to add my voice in full agreement with this.

@HoneyBadgerDC

They went on to say that seal levels were 20 meters higher, and trees were growing in Antarctica. The assumption here is that this is totally due to carbon which may or may not be true, I really don’t know. But I would like to know. Lots of things were different 3 million years ago. How much of that can be traced directly to carbon. Climate change is a huge deal to me, I take it very serious. But I want good information which is very hard to find. Maybe the media needs to be held a little more accountable for delivering information that portrays things in an accurate light.

If you would really like to know, there is lots of good information available, and the media is not generally the best place to get it. In fact it’s generally a terrible place to get it, typically varying from scientifically ignorant reporting (e.g.- CNN) to intentional denialism (e.g. Fox News). A good source for very well vetted information, at differing levels of scientific detail, and with thousands of scientific citations, is the IPCC, particularly the Working Group I reports on the basic science. There are also informative publications from the various NASA climate organizations, NOAA, and the National Academy of Sciences.

@HoneyBadgerDC

One of the biggest issues with climate change is rising sea levels. If I look up volume of ice in the arctic and surface area of the ocean about a 3 meter rise is the worst case scenario I can come up with but I could be missing something. They are telling us it is a 20 meter rise.

You mention Arctic ice. Did you remember to include the Antarctic, too, and just forgot to mention it? It contains the majority of the world’s land ice, which is what really matters, Greenland being the only other major ice sheet, containing a tiny fraction of the volume of Antarctic ice. Were you aware that most Arctic ice is sea ice? Melting of frozen saltwater sea ice makes no direct contribution to sea level rise at all, and melting of frozen freshwater sea ice very little. Plus, thermal expansion alone is responsible for about one-third of global sea level rise. Your analysis is not just “missing something”, it seems to be missing almost everything. Read the science, don’t try to re-invent the science.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Addressing climate change DOES mean “cutting back, mitigation strategies, adaptive strategies” and more; there’s no question that we cannot continue on this path or we will slice our own necks open. Do you doubt that? Then what questions are you asking, exactly?

My first question is why do you think we have a knife at our throat with this issue? How much of the money coming off of oil dollars is paying for Climate science research? Why are we not waiting for an alternative fuel source before we start penalizing oil usage and shutting down pipelines.

@wolfpup

You mention Arctic ice. Did you remember to include the Antarctic, too, and just forgot to mention it? It contains the majority of the world’s land ice, which is what really matters, Greenland being the only other major ice sheet, containing a tiny fraction of the volume of Antarctic ice. Were you aware that most Arctic ice is sea ice? Melting of frozen saltwater sea ice makes no direct contribution to sea level rise at all, and melting of frozen freshwater sea ice very little. Plus, thermal expansion alone is responsible for about one-third of global sea level rise. Your analysis is not just “missing something”, it seems to be missing almost everything. Read the science, don’t try to re-invent the science.

I am learning as I go, I just don’t see as much discussion as I would like to see.

[naita]

@HoneyBadgerDC

Why are we not waiting for an alternative fuel source before we start penalizing oil usage and shutting down pipelines.

Because all models indicate we are already headed for fairly catastrophic climate change. The system has a great deal of inertia, what we do now isn’t about what will happen in the next few years, that was already set by our inaction several years ago. Any continuing delay means more severe consequences on top of what is already coming.

Focusing on where money is coming from is a distraction. Money isn’t a resource, it’s a tool for managing actual resources.

[naita]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I am learning as I go, I just don’t see as much discussion as I would like to see.

Sometimes there isn’t much discussion because anyone with knowledge about a situation understands the limitations. That you still, in 2021, cannot grasp the enormity of climate change is not the fault of climate science or the people trying to inform you of it.

[DesertDog]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I am learning as I go, I just don’t see as much discussion as I would like to see.

Just yesterday Kurzgesagt released a 16-minute video, Can YOU Fix Climate Change? It seems pretty even handed to me – including both “waste our time banning plastic straws” and “sponsored by Bill Gates’ blog” it’ll piss off both sides, yet it covers the basics very well. You might start there.

[Princhester]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I am learning as I go, I just don’t see as much discussion as I would like to see.

And do cigarettes really cause lung cancer? I’d just like to see a bit more discussion and research.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

@naita

Sometimes there isn’t much discussion because anyone with knowledge about a situation understands the limitations. That you still, in 2021, cannot grasp the enormity of climate change is not the fault of climate science or the people trying to inform you of it.

You couldn’t be more wrong about that. I am trying to build enough knowledge where I have some grasp on it. You seem to think that everyone should just settle for we have to stop using carbon fuels and that is all they need to know. Some people want to know more about it. We can’t stop using carbon fuels anytime soon.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

And who really paid for all that lung cancer research? Has anyone looked into that and written an incomprehensible study with a quotable Summary? And did anyone look into who funded that study?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Define “soon”.

That’s where the discussion is.

[naita]

@HoneyBadgerDC

You couldn’t be more wrong about that. I am trying to build enough knowledge where I have some grasp on it. You seem to think that everyone should just settle for we have to stop using carbon fuels and that is all they need to know. Some people want to know more about it. We can’t stop using carbon fuels anytime soon.

So you haven’t participated in these discussions for years? Always requesting just a little more information to accept that the climate scientists have been correct about the trajectory for decades? You might be right that we can’t stop using carbon fuels anytime soon without major consequences, but at this point the consequences of not stopping are starting to look extremely grim. It’s a pity you didn’t look carefully into this any of the many times over the years when everyone on this board told you were woefully uninformed. You could have been part of the solution.

[Princhester]

@HoneyBadgerDC

Some people want to know more about it.

You are quite understandably going to run into a great deal of scepticism about your motives and sincerity here. The debate has been going for a decade. Explanations of the problem have been everywhere. The amount of discussion has been immense. Despite this you appear to have no knowledge of some of the most basic facts.

You are like that guy that comes in at the end of a whole day meeting and wants everything that’s already been presented to be explained to them.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I have followed these discussions for years but I have never really been satisfied with the scope of the discussions. I like to know a lot more about how carbon acts and how it interacts with other things. I am a truck mechanic so I put my neck on the line here every time I ask a question. There are tons of factors involved that have been studied but don’t get much publicity. Some of you act as if asking questions make some one the enemy. I don’t want a predetermined answer. I want a more complete answer.

[Kimstu]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I don’t want a predetermined answer. I want a more complete answer.

If you’re asking about facts that are quite well established, how can that not be a “predetermined answer”?

What is it that you want to know that you think hasn’t been adequately established or explained so far?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Do you accept the advice of people who tell you not to eat uranium?

Can you explain, in detail, how and why isotopes decay?

[Kimstu]

@HoneyBadgerDC

How much of the money coming off of oil dollars is paying for Climate science research?

Well, here’s a 2017 paper abstract on that issue from the American Geophysical Union meeting:

Commercial producers of lead, tobacco, petroleum, and other products have funded extensive scholarly research in ways designed to confuse the public about the dangers of those products and thwart regulation [1-3]. For example, strategy documentation of the U.S. oil and gas industry from the late 1990s describes using selective support for scientists as a strategy for creating an atmosphere of debate and uncertainty, with the ultimate goal of delaying and defeating climate policies [4]. In this context, we systematically examine current funding from commercial fossil fuel interests of climate-relevant research - such as energy technology and climate policy research - in U.S. universities. We quantify such funding using charitable giving databases, university websites, and other publicly available records. We find that, especially among the most influential universities, climate-related research programs are frequently dominated by funding from fossil fuel interests. Moreover, these relationships sometimes afford funders privileges including formal control over research directions.

[asahi]

@HoneyBadgerDC

We can’t stop using carbon fuels anytime soon.

I appreciate that you’re making the effort - that’s to be commended. I think what you’re receiving on your end is frustration that in 2021 you don’t seem to understand the enormity of the problem. That could be a partial misperception on our part, but that’s my take on it.

[wolfpup]

@HoneyBadgerDC

Some of you act as if asking questions make some one the enemy. I don’t want a predetermined answer. I want a more complete answer.

I provided a link to a vast wealth of information from the IPCC in my previous post. I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even click on it. It makes me question just exactly what you mean by wanting “a more complete answer”, since it’s right there, in abundance. It only takes a small investment of your time. Or are you angling for “an answer that I like”?