The toxic rhetoric of climate change

The toxic rhetoric of climate change

Author
Discussion

Simpo Two

Original Poster:

86,740 posts

271 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
As an alternative to the 156-page thread, this sums it up for me:

https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/14/the-toxic-rheto...

“I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1 am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified.” – Young adult in the UK


Beati Dogu

9,132 posts

145 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
It's worrying that people can be so gullible and lack even a vestige of critical thinking to believe this guff.

“There's a sucker born every minute.”as PT Barnum famously said.

Craig W

423 posts

165 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
It's worrying that people can be so gullible and lack even a vestige of critical thinking to believe this guff.
This is the more worrying part.

I won't get sucked into debating all of this as it is ultimately pointless and I tend to lie somewhere between "it's all guff" and "we are all going to die", but the fact that people can't think for themselves and consider the source of information is strange.

See also: anything related to veganism.

Eric Mc

122,699 posts

271 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
Humans need big issues to worry about. When the Cold War ended, we floundered around for a while looking for some new apocalyptic vision to scare the bejaysus out of us. "Global Warming" has fulfilled that role nicely.

kerplunk

7,264 posts

212 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Humans need big issues to worry about. When the Cold War ended, we floundered around for a while looking for some new apocalyptic vision to scare the bejaysus out of us. "Global Warming" has fulfilled that role nicely.
Not sure how invoking the cold war speaks to the validity of threat? Nobody would have really pressed the button - is that what you're saying?

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 17th December 11:43

Alex_6n2

328 posts

205 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Hans Rosling discusses the human trait that drives this in his book.

Humans are hard wired to love drama. 3000 years ago a reaction of "Everyone panic!!!! There's a sabre tooth tiger!!!!" was beneficial for survival.

Not anymore. Now we just go looking for something to panic about

https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness/

CzechItOut

2,154 posts

197 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
The issue for me is that we have these wide scale threats in the past, the Cold War, ozone depletion, Millennium Bug etc. but no one really knows how true they were and what the impact could have been.

I have heard people say the Millennium Bug was scare mongering because nothing happened on 1st Jan 2000. However, companies invested vast sums in checking all their equipment, systems etc. to ensure they were not impacted. Therefore was it scaremongering or did the huge amount of preparation stave off any large scale impacts?

Same with ozone depletion. Was this overblown, well I guess we'll never know as CFCs were universally banned and the ozone has gradually repaired.

This is my concern with climate change. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and yell scare mongering, hoax, conspiracy or whatever. The fact is we will never know the truth until it is either too late or we have taken proactive steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases from man made activities.

Therefore, the question becomes is inaction worth the risk? Given that the UK has reduced our carbon output by over 40% since 1990 with relatively little impact to the end user it seems logical to continue this, particularly in the energy sector. Once the major of energy is from renewable sources, then reducing the impact of transport is the next logical step.

The problem is groups like Extinction Rebellion and their hairshirt approach. For me, this is a lack of leadership at a country level. Too many politicians seem incapable of articulating the progress we have made in the last decade and prefer to bury their heads in the sand which creates a vacuum for groups like XR to operate in.

Most people seem unaware of what has been achieved, which I think is an easy message to articulate and will put groups like XR to bed once and for all.

Alex_6n2

328 posts

205 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
I agree, things have moved on positively but further action is still needed particularly in the East

It's the level of panic and drama from some individuals/groups that provides no benefit other than furthering media coverage, at the cost of increasing drama based rhetoric.

The EU has been very effective at reducing its CO2 emissions but this isn't celebrated.

anonymous-user

60 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
These are fringe comments and do not invalidate the views of the many.

Most Uk climate activists I know are aware there are unlikely to be many net deaths in the uk (if any) in the UK in next 50 years.

But the uk is in a unique position geographically. Other countries may not be so fortunate

Eric Mc

122,699 posts

271 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Eric Mc said:
Humans need big issues to worry about. When the Cold War ended, we floundered around for a while looking for some new apocalyptic vision to scare the bejaysus out of us. "Global Warming" has fulfilled that role nicely.
Not sure how invoking the cold war speaks to the validity of threat? Nobody would have really pressed the button - is that what you're saying?

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 17th December 11:43
It's not the threat's status that I'm talking about - it's the public's reaction to the PERCEIVED threat - and how it is "bigged up" through discussion and the media.

The danger is that people can get so jaded by the doom and gloom that they enter a state of depression. Negativity is the biggest problem caused by these global "threats". The "threat" itself can be dealt with. Human's are smart.

Getragdogleg

9,040 posts

189 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Headlines like "pre asteroid Earth was Stressed" don't help at all.

The notion that there is a specific set of conditions that is "correct" for the Earth to conform to and anything else is wrong is a big problem with CC and its proponents.

Add into the mix big budget films that scare people, the Day after Tomorrow, 2012 and the like and a population that are given daily doses of doom and gloom in the media and its not hard to see why some people are freaking out.

When people get scared they often lash out and get angry. Its all very well feeding people this stuff but what happens when ER get more scared and more angry ?

It wont be climate change that will cause riots but the perception of CC in the minds of the masses.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/1912...

Eric Mc

122,699 posts

271 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Precisely.

The discussion needs to be taken down a notch or two. Greta Thunberg is actually a corrosive little girl, whether she understands that or not. The rhetoric that "humans bad" and "nature good" is terribly damaging. Neither statement is correct. Humans are part of nature.

Terminator X

15,950 posts

210 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
You will not stop global CO2 ticking upwards imho. It goes up about 2ppm every year so 100ppm over 50 years. Imagine Greta in 20 years time when it is sitting at 450 or so! Spend money adapting as it can't be stopped imho e.g. we are too hooked on all the CO2 producing things to stop using them.

TX.

LordGrover

33,655 posts

218 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Isn't CO2 is at a relatively low level over geological time?


Getragdogleg

9,040 posts

189 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Of course, the other thing to bear in mind is that it is a naturally changing chaotic system. one that is always changing and always will.

Our own population has grown and with that we now occupy more of the planet, our ingenuity has overcome local conditions and we are able to live and indeed thrive in some of the most inhospitable of places.

Super high temperatures, Diluvian events, Drought, fire and indeed ultra cold spells are all natural, we are just in the way more than ever now.

As our numbers increase more of us are going to get killed by simply being in the way of an event, its a statistical certainty.

budgie smuggler

5,504 posts

165 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
LordGrover said:
Isn't CO2 is at a relatively low level over geological time?

Perhaps, but what's the relevance of a level from millions of years ago?

You have to go back ~3 million years before you get to the level we have now. We've gone from 340 to 410 ppm just in the last 40 years.

Eric Mc

122,699 posts

271 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
Getragdogleg said:
Of course, the other thing to bear in mind is that it is a naturally changing chaotic system. one that is always changing and always will.

Our own population has grown and with that we now occupy more of the planet, our ingenuity has overcome local conditions and we are able to live and indeed thrive in some of the most inhospitable of places.

Super high temperatures, Diluvian events, Drought, fire and indeed ultra cold spells are all natural, we are just in the way more than ever now.

As our numbers increase more of us are going to get killed by simply being in the way of an event, its a statistical certainty.
A good example of modern humans getting in the way of normal and natural events are those tourists who got taken out in that volcanic explosion last week. In times past, they would not have been there and sensible locals would have been keeping their distance.

Eric Mc

122,699 posts

271 months

Tuesday 17th December 2019
quotequote all
budgie smuggler said:
Perhaps, but what's the relevance of a level from millions of years ago?

You have to go back ~3 million years before you get to the level we have now. We've gone from 340 to 410 ppm just in the last 40 years.
And?

The world didn't end 3 million years ago - and it won't this time either. Sure, humans will be inconvenienced, perhaps, but we'll get over it and continue to thrive - until the next asteroid hits.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

134 months

Wednesday 18th December 2019
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
As an alternative to the 156-page thread, this sums it up for me:

https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/14/the-toxic-rheto...

“I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1 am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified.” – Young adult in the UK
The old fashioned Boomers had to live through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9EL5WYqlY

I guess that is why they called them Boomers, they might get Boom during school and had to hide under the school desk before they got turned to ash.

Ah the good old days when you really had something to be worried about !



Gandahar

9,600 posts

134 months

Wednesday 18th December 2019
quotequote all
LordGrover said:
Isn't CO2 is at a relatively low level over geological time?

you're on the wrong thread for a start ! This is the science ALARMISM thread, which does actually have a place due to current science being linked 24/7 with media. However your point is best on the science climate thread.

I think it's the rate of change rather than the total amount though, like temps that is the point. It's a non trivial subject and we do all like to stick our oars in as we paddle about among all the info. Spilsh splash.