A lot of people do not seem to understand the implications of climate change. The majority of people do not deny that climate change is happening (well, at least outside of the United States), and most of them also understand that it’s humans causing it through emissions of greenhouse gases and land-use change. But they still don’t understand that they will probably die from it. Here are the most likely ways you could die because of climate change
  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    145·
    8 days ago

    They don’t agree with a lot of what’s being observed. Take your pick on who is being realistic.

    • troed@fedia.io
      204·
      8 days ago

      I often encounter, especially on social media, individuals who are convinced that the latest extreme weather event is confirmation that the climate crisis is far worse than we thought, and scientists and climate communicators are intentionally “hiding” the scary truth from the public. It is the sort of conspiratorial thinking that we used to find among climate change deniers, but increasingly today we see it with climate doomists.

      • Michael E Mann

      https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2023/09/climate-doomism-disregards-science

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        101·
        7 days ago

        A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel’s reports suggest.

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm

        As a climate scientist, it is my duty to tell you about what is happening to our world, whether it engenders fear or not.

        A failure to do this will mean that the public is left ignorant of the true extent of the climate emergency, which in turn can only hinder engagement and action.

        This is already becoming a problem, with many commentators on the right of the political spectrum, along with some climate scientists, denigrating as “doomers” anyone flagging the worst outcomes of global heating.

        Such climate “appeasement” is increasingly taking the place of denial and could be an even greater driver of inertia than fear, as it plays down the enormity of the problem — and as an inevitable consequence, the urgency of action.

        Bill McGuire

        https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire/index.html

        • troed@fedia.io
          35·
          7 days ago

          It’s your choice to hold opinions over scientific consensus.

          It’s known as climate science denial.

          • Gloomy@mander.xyz
            5·
            7 days ago

            What? You literaly poster an opinion peace. By a climate scientist, yes, but so is the response I posted.

            Plus, I quoted a study in reply to the comments about the IPCC.

            How is that climate science denial?

              • Gloomy@mander.xyz
                2·
                7 days ago

                And it is science denial to have a scientific opinion that is interpreting facts differently then the consensus?

                Also, from my first source:

                “The IPCC supports the overwhelming scientific consensus about human impact on climate change, so we would expect the reports’ vocabulary to be dominated by greater certainty on the state of climate science – but this is not the case.”

                The IPCC assigns a level of certainty to climate findings using five categories of confidence and ten categories of probability. The team found the categories of intermediate certainty predominated, with those of highest certainty barely reaching 8% of the climate findings evaluated.

                “The accumulation of uncertainty across all elements of the climate-change complexity means that the IPCC tends to be conservative,” says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Fellow in Global Ecology at Flinders University. “The certainty is in reality much higher than even the IPCC implies, and the threats are much worse.”

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        5·
        7 days ago

        I lost respect for Mann when he took the road to blaming “doomers” for why humanity isn’t taking enough action. That’s a bunch of bullshit, and he knows it. I’m not sure why he veered from trying to inform people that we are in deep trouble to pointing fingers at people who are concerned.

        Btw Michael, no one is saying the scientists are hiding the scary stuff. They’re pointing to the same data everyone else is getting and asking why isn’t anyone who can change things screaming fire. You’re in that group, Michael. Why AREN’T you worried more? I don’t want to make any suggestions on why you’re playing this act because I don’t know, but you know the science, so you should know better.

        • troed@fedia.io
          32·
          7 days ago

          These threads are filled with doomers who consider “it’s worse than we thought” to be true regardless of who claims it, and any data - how well grounded in science it may be - that doesn’t support impending human extinction as false.

          It’s funny, but as Mann points out, that’s the very definition of climate science denial too.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            5·
            7 days ago

            Sure, doom and gloom just because it’s trendy is bad. But doom as in, “it is worse than thought previously, because of this and that point” is not part of that. It’s “oh shit, look what we’ve done”.