With the month long heat wave.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
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 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
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.
its confusing because while no-one would expect to be experts in fields they didnt study, they should have studied enough to at least have a basic grasp of the scientific process (if an engineer they should have done some physics maybe up to 2nd year depending on their discipline which would surely have given them the tools to understand how science works in general)
Right but you don’t learn about climate change in physics 1 and 2. I have a computer science degree and took calculus up to calc 4 and physics up to physics 2. The only way you’ll truly understand climate change is if you dedicate yourself to learning about it.
A degree like computer science will prepare you and give you the tools necessary to cut though to the truth but you need to pursue the underlying subjects outside of school because school alone isn’t enough.
The assumption that an engineer should know better is just that, an assumption.
At the end of the day understanding climate change is an educational issue that quite frankly schools do not address.
Right but you don’t learn about climate change in physics 1 and 2
thats not the point. the point is they learn enough about the scientific method, which I did at that level, to have an understanding that the process behind research and plublication would weed out fake or poor science. Sometimes something slips through. But to think that 50+ years of studies across the world by thousands of different researchers in different fields all publishing findings in support of the climate change model is just some agenda or some random theory to be discounted is not something that someone who paid attention in their classes would conclude
I’ve been hearing this since the 90s. It’s nothing new.
“Why don’t you call anymore?”
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!
If you google the exact words, this is what comes up:
Dear Quote Investigator: Jonathan Swift was a prominent literary figure who authored “Gulliver's Travels” and “A Modest Proposal”. He has been credited with an elegant thought about the limitations of persuasion via logical argument: You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.Thanks!
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.
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!
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.
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
An EV goes about 6 times as far as an equal weight and aeri ICE on the same energy. A typical EV goes ten times as far as a typical ICE. Even the most inefficient coal plant still puts the EV ahead (including embodied emissions) after a year or two.
Neither are sustainable as the default transport for people.
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.
“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…
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 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
not incorrect! its just that its a process of billions of years, not a few years!
I think I’ll be more concerned about the sun expanding into a red giant
Nothing. They just talk about Biden destroying the economy with Hunter’s laptop and Hillary’s buttery males.
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”
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.
It’s all being done by HAARP. When confronted by sentences like that, all words escape me.
What’s that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program
A magnet for conspiracy theorists 🧲
deleted by creator
in addition to the below, a pretty cool Muse album
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.
On top of that, people
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.
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?
They compare it to heatwaves from the 1970s…
Boomers never left the 70s
“The earth has had warming cycles before”
“How can you prove records from a thousand years ago”
“It’s all just a scam to tax us more”
Theyve changed from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening, but it’s the biblical end times and doesn’t need to be concerned about.”
So just more denial about it being an actual problem.
“There was climate change when the Vikings were around so it’s not as clear cut as people make out.”
In my country we’ve had the opposite of a heat wave, the worst summer I can remember with rain almost every day and temperatures barely making it above 20 degrees. He says that this shows the planet isn’t heating up and jokes that we need more carbon.
