With the month long heat wave.
“Why don’t you call anymore?”
Most of them at this point are no longer deniers, but they have moved the goalposts as expected. They now claim global warming is real, but that it has nothing to do with humans and is a natural cycle of the planet. They fully accept it’s real, but fully deny we have anything to do with it.
I thought this was basically their stance the whole time. People thought it wasn’t real at all?
I had a coworker ten fifteen years ago who said basically “God’s doing it and it’s a sign of the end times.” This dude was a trained engineer.
It’s always amazing to me how people can be experts in a certain field of science, and then go on to deny other fields of science. I have many coworkers like that as a software engineer.
It’s not that hard to understand. There is no reason to assume that someone that spent 4-8 years studying computers is going to be an expert in physics or other sciences. That person is an expert in computers and nothing else unless they studied it.
The problem arises tho when people who are an expert in one field or subject use that as validation to them that they are smart. Therefore any other topic they discuss makes them an expert and so you can never have a real discussion with them because in their mind they are always right.
I find it is hard to understand. Because now we all carry around a smartphone and can look at Wikipedia and a variety of other sources. On almost any topic, it is accurate with citations. And it really does not take that many people to create accurate sources of information. Truth basically is singular, you can detail it backwards and forwards. We have public libraries full of accurate information.
What I do understand is that oil companies spend a massive amount of money on branding, marketing, sports, etc. The information people believe isn’t just random theories against how fire burning produces CO2 and warms up the Earth. They very specifically believe things the marketing and advertising tells them to. It’s a basic business formula to spend x percentage of all your income on marketing. It works across every field, for every $100 income you put $3 right back into keeping your customer “educated” from a voice outside the product material (such as product placement in a film, or a sponsorship message between news stories).
I find people will sell their souls for free songs, free websites, free TV channels. They just don’t see how artificial changes in group behavior can become popular through marketing/advertising. They can’t face that marketing companies measure increases in sales, and sped precise amounts of money marketing a hamburger shop that everyone knows is there, but still the signal directs customers to change their choice of meals.
Even religions that are not their own. It’s taught. They can’t face up to the fact that a person who is raised with no religion does not believe the book they believe. And if you take them to a country with a different religion or human language, they can’t make the connection that it is all learned.
I can understand not having a skill from experience. Spending 8 years to learn how to do surgery correctly. But there really isn’t a reason for humanity to poison itself with marketing and advertising that climate change isn’t real - just to keep a specific set of billionaires in power.
We could pay for our TV shows, songs, films, website. Not poison our minds with falsehoods in advertising. That chain hamburger shop doesn’t need to remind us it is there, if it’s good, we will go get a burger. It’s the motivation systems of misinformation that seems the hardest thing to understand and change. People can be incredibly attracted to things they find “funny” or “odd”. humanity can be sold all kinds of products that are not good quality or even cheaper… just by branding/marketing/logo things. I can’t understand why people haven’t had ENOUGH of it. Like even the Reddit API change was about adding more marketing and cutting out apps that didn’t do Reddit advertising.
It used to really boggle my mind too (I met a young earth creationist for the first time in my life, he was a network engineer), but then I realized a lot of people just look at techy type jobs purely to make money, not because they are science and tech nerds.
Many people go towards software engineer/computer science type stuff because that’s where the money is. And honestly there is not much there that really would change someones ideology - nothing about sorting algorithms, processor opcodes, schedulers, etc etc really challenges someone’s views - just tools to learn to make that paycheck. So a young earther learns what a packet is and how it gets routed from point a to point b - what exactly would challenge his view that the bible is literal in any of that? Those kinds of people don’t really have any curiosity about the world and are not looking for any answers
That’s the crux of Faith: maintaining it in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I used to work with a young earth Christian programmer. He was a great Dev and a genuinely good person. He also kept his faith to himself and only takes about it when we directly asked him.
It’s like religion people who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old or something. They know about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution… but I’m like, dude, that’s done by walking around and measuring plants, animals, insects. We have microscopes and DNA now. We know the DNA difference between two kinds of birds. We know how a single cell from female and male come together and follow DNA patterns to create the whole animal, even humans! They just won’t accept that DNA was after Darwin’s time and proved he was right!
Cut down all the trees and put roads and buildings everywhere since year 1800. Start burning whale oil and then petrol oil as fast as you can. Make everything powered by oil. it’s burning, like burning wood at a campfire. Do you see the smoke and gas? Do you think a car is not burning petrol? A power plant isn’t burning petrol? Fire! It burns carbon products, wood, uses oxygen. It makes carbon dioxide. “A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year.”
Here, can’t we take something like a fish tank and put a burning candle in it, and show you the smoke and gas it creates.
Oh, they are dumping pollution into the river and you think the town downstream isn’t getting poisoned? Who is the town upstream from where you live.
But the advertising and marketing of the oil companies ‘inform them’. You can’t convince them how fire works, making smoke and gas. And start counting up how many fires you see driving around on the roads of the world, and how many power plants are burning petrol, etc.
Advertising and marketing can convince them of anything, the stuff they believe just because snazzy presentation.
It’s all a hoax, it’s not a big deal, it’s just hot out.
My family is from Iowa, where they’ve had record breaking storms 3 out of the last 5 years, heat waves lasting longer than ever in history, record cold, and to top it off, wildfire smoke for the first time ever. (Note that this is after they made fun of Cali for being Cali and being on fire). No, none of these events have registered as connected in any way.
Nothing will ever convince these people. They are immune to evidence and argument.
logic will never convince them because they aren’t arguing from a position of logic. It’s about conforming to the beliefs required to be part of their tribe and/or protecting themselves from coming to terms with the harsh realities of climate change. It’s reactionary against a challenge to their beliefs.
You would need to first convince them to consider that their respected authorities could be wrong. But within this reactionary mindset, being wrong is disgraceful. So unless they lose respect for their leaders or manage to shift away from believing fallibility is disgraceful, I don’t know if they can be convinced.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
This may be one of the most insightful things I’ve ever read or heard. Are you quoting someone, or should I quote you?
It’s attributed to Jonathan Swift, 1721
Awesome, thank you!
logic will never convince them to consider
That’s kind of why I’m asking, the month long heat wave should be eye opening.
I think you’d need to start by getting them to admit that the heat is a problem without mentioning climate change. Don’t use any of the buzz words they’ve been taught how to respond to. Just try to get them to have a conversation where they have to come up with their own answers.
In fact, maybe don’t even start off with anything related to the topics they’ve been told what to think about. Ask about something they care about more directly that isn’t on their party’s agenda. You’d need to keep at it long enough for them to start understanding you’re not their enemy, which could be anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks/months, depending on how deeply entrenched they are. Then, start trying to work towards the lesser issues their authority doesn’t bring up often but has expressed an opinion on. Basically, you need to de-indoctrinate them.
If you can get them to talk about an issue without recognizing immediately that they’re in danger of contradicting their chosen authorities, then slowly transition towards getting them to talk about more and more “dangerous” topics, you might help them to bridge that disconnect and start thinking critically about the key issues.
That all said, You’ll have an easier time working with people who haven’t been deeply entrenched in an authoritarian ideology. The less developed their beliefs, the easier it’ll be to guide them towards thinking about their beliefs critically. That’s one reason it’s so important to teach critical thinking in primary/secondary schools.
Nope. Many have had the urge to ask questions literally beaten out of them in their youth.
Perhaps if you could separate them from their social group long enough. Send them on a three-month trip, preferably to another country. Have them spend most of their time with people who deal with these problems on a daily basis.
Worse. I think many are immune to observation.
maybe if you can convince them that global warming helps out joe biden they will be against it.
You see it’s a conspiracy, Sleepy Joe wants us to keep using fossil fuels so the liberals will vote him back it so it looks like he’s doing something! The last thing he wants is for us to stop using fossil fuels! I bought an EV today just to spite him
most electric plants use coal or natural gas. EV isnt any “cleaner” than a small gas engine.
We’re on nuclear, solar, and hydro where I am, something like 90-95% of my energy is clean. Demand your local energy go green!
The biggest difference is even when using dirty energy source electrice vehicles are more efficient at using the electricity from the dirty sources than gas engines are at burning gasoline directly
They’ve run the numbers a long time ago. Even using the dirtiest electricity state in the US, EVs come out ahead of combustion engines. And we’ve come a long ways since then too.
Right on par with the old, “Hurr durr of course it’s hot, it’s July!!!1!1!!1!” comments. These are the same folks who, when faced with a polar vortex in December or January, proudly and obnoxiously crow about “global warming.”
Their tiny brains just can’t comprehend the difference between weather and climate. I have had meager success explaining that climate change results in worse extremes, colds get colder,hots get hotter, and storms get stronger, but even then it’s only some of them that actually listen. The rest are like “I’ve got it allllll figured out” and refuse to listen, then drive off in their 0.7mpg Ford Tahoe Super Manly Man Maker to go to the grocery store 8 blocks away.
It’s the hottest July in recorded history. Likely the hottest for tens of thousands of years. There hasn’t been below average temperatures since the eighties, no not even that winter that you thought was quite cold at the time. Polar vortices are supposed to happen at, you know, the poles.
According to my father in law: everything’s fine, actually. It’s hot, sure, but it’s been hot before. The actual problem is that The Weather Channel has started to get political/go woke and push an agenda.
So next time it’s so hot the power grid can’t take it or your house is destroyed in a flood or forest fire, it’s just that pesky Weather Channel!
Fire and Rain have gotten so woke
They don’t care about the heat wave in southern Europe because northern Europe has had a relatively cold and rainy July.
The slightly less dumb ones now say “Yeah it’s happening but we shouldn’t fight it, we should just accept it” (and then proceed to complain about refugees, which will increase x1000 if we don’t do anything but they don’t make the connection)
The dumber ones say that it’s “natural cycles”
“hottest summer on record? Give it a rest, they say that every year!”
Also I’m in the UK which has been raining and dreary for the last month so it’s not getting as much coverage here.
“hottest summer on record? Give it a rest, they say that every year!”
That’s funny because it’s true. Also sad. Mostly sad actually.
They’re so close…
They complain about how weird and unprecedented the weather has been the last few years, but if I so much as mention the word “climate” an awkward silence descends. I also had a guy hint at some weird conspiracy theory about the sun recently.
Say weather change and see if that gets the ball rolling.
I think I might have at some point, actually. It seems any suggestion that it’s not a few years of weird coincidences shakes people.
Right? Climate is the average of weather, usually over 30 years. So if the weather is substantially different for a few years in a row it starts impacting climate.
This is simple arithmetic.
Exactly. And I figure a lot of those people think that they’re the same thing, or would have, anyway.
The sun is expanding into a Red Giant and that’s why it’s getting hotter, obviously /s
I kind of wish they had more than teased whatever they were thinking. I actually know a thing or two about the solar cycle and the current going-ons with the sun.
I think I’ll be more concerned about the sun expanding into a red giant
Friendly reminder that it’s not about denial anymore. It’s about how urgent is the existential threat of tipping points and how radical and fast should we act.
One side says, let’s stay reasonable, let’s not hurt the economy, don’t panic because of the these crazy Greta maniacs. Source: We managed a lot of crisis in the past, sometimes it’s not that hot, lobby money.
The other side says we have to hit the breaks immediately or a lot of people are going to die. Source: Science.
What are you basing the existential threat claim on? I don’t think I’ve heard a credible scientist ever claim it’s going to end our specie. The yearly excess deaths estimates I’ve heard vary from few hundred thousand to couple million a year in 2050 - 2100.
While your numbers, if factual (no source posted), are statistically correct (in that it won’t make our species go extinct), you have to remember a simple fact: those numbers represent individual human lives. Family, friends, neighbors, your pizza guy, etc. Pretty brutal to be so flippant about.
Also, this doesn’t take into account the potential for cascading environmental system failures that could be caused by such warming. These unknowns could greatly change the equation.
I realize you are mainly arguing the point in response to “existential threats” being bandied about, but it’s a weird stance to take here.
It’s a real issue and actions needs to be taken to prevent the worst case scenario but I find it not useful when people extraggerate the dangers of it. It makes people suspicious about what other things we’re being misled about.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
Thanks for the solid source! I do understand the need for keeping the discussion real, but the article clearly states,
…concluded that to avert catastrophic health impacts and prevent millions of climate change-related deaths…
Sounds pretty existential to me, at a scale we have never experienced.
Sure. I’m in no way against fighting the climate change and under no illusion that it’s not going to affect the lives of billions of people and will lead to probably tens of millions of unecessary deaths. It’s a true crisis.
I just personally get irritated when people talk about it as if an asteroid is heading towards earth and is going to wipe out us all. It’s unproductive and causes extreme anxiety to many (especially young) people who don’t know better and it’s also free ammunition for climate change deniers to point out how “the libs lie about this too” etc.
That anxiety bit is too true, it has me fairly despondent when I think about it too long. It’s fair assertion you make, for sure.
Exactly - it is your duty to question the Government and the scientists that work for them. Lets be honest, the Govt’s track record for truth is a tad suspect and thats being extra nice. As I said earlier, the alarmists have been selling this to us(or trying to) in differently wrapped packages now for several decades. Even back in the 1970’s there were hysterical claims being made. None of it came anywhere close to being true. So, logically, people question it.
More importantly, people question the mitigation tactics which seem to only affect the lower/middle classes directly. Another tough thing for the average Joe to swallow.
People are already dying because of the heat or starving because of droughts and water scarcity. Based on the IPCC report it will become even worse, especially of we don’t manage to avoid the tipping points of the climate crisis in the next few years.
I haven’t denied any of that
(Sorry, English is not my first language)
If I understand you correctly you criticize my usage of the word existential, bc it implies that the climate catastrophe will kill all humans? If yes, then I have to correct myself. While this could be a possible outcome, it’s not based on actual research.
Nah, existential is spot on
Relating to existence
Seems all too apropos in this context.
There are definitely worse scenarios. The worst I know states that most parts of the world will be uninhabitable by humans and estimate that there will be 1-1.5 billion survivors by the end of the century. So, end of our species? No, just too damn close for comfort.
Some more context: I couldn’t find the report unfortunately and I don’t know wether it’s a majority opinion in science. The scenario talks about a temperature increase of 7°C and of course it’s a worst-case scenario. However, it’s definitely a possible scenario.
Edit: found this, definitely a credible scientist.
Can you elaborate on the “hit the brakes immediately” or we’re all going to die statement? What “Science” backs this claim up? Legit science please, not from agenda-laden website.
The IPCC report is what you‘re looking for! And since it‘s it‘s almost impossible to even reach the goal of 1,5 degrees, we should hit the breaks better sooner than later. It‘s not an „oopsie“ problem we would face otherwise. People are already dying.
No - Im not looking for anything, actually. I just would prefer that those that chest-thump about this stuff would walk the talk and take a “lead”. But they refuse. What does “hit the brakes” mean? Are the rich going to also hit the brakes? Or is this all on us “little people” as usual?
My dad: “the earth goes through natural temperature cycles, I’ve got some good scientific sources who say it’s all natural and climate change is just scaremongering”
Guess that’s another topic along with the EU, immigration, COVID, vaccination that I can’t talk about with my family.
Makes it hard and frustrating to continue to have a relationship at times.
“Amazing dad, do these cycles usually happen in the span of a lifetime?” I don’t expect you to say that, I already know his answer. It’s whatever Fox News told him to say
Oh I did. He just has “evidence from reliable sources” to say it’s all a hoax.
“There is no climate change! It’s China and liberals trying to take more of our money!”
My brain… 😮💨
Wait, are you guys getting money from climate denialists? Count me in!
Nothing. They just talk about Biden destroying the economy with Hunter’s laptop and Hillary’s buttery males.
“It’s only natural” seems to be the go to.
The people in my personal life, though, are mostly just EXTREMELY wary of just about any information at all.
They are more comfortable putting shit down to some conspiracy, rather than looking at how awful some people are outright.
I don’t think they want to admit, or submit to the hopelessness of the situation, especially economically. So they rather keep themselves busy with petty bs.
I don’t have climate change denialists in my life. That’s usually indicative of other beliefs and values that don’t jive with mine, and we end up being incompatible as friends.
Mostly “There have always been hot Sommers.”
“I’m following the real scientist. They’re called climatists and they just all banded together and said ‘stop all this bullshit reporting’ to the mainstream media!”
My soul left my body and I died.
