[squigz]

The "problem" with doomers is that they offer no nuance. Almost all of the issues people talk about are real issues we should be taking action on. But when assertions like "climate change is going to kill us all" are thrown around, it leaves very little room for actual change, and effectively demoralizes other people.

[jamil7]

It’s because it’s an easier and more comfortable place to be. You don’t have to do anything if you don’t have a horse in the race. Changing habits, educating yourself, demonstrating, joining a party etc. all take time and effort. It’s a lot simpler to just throw your hands up and say nothing works, we’re all doomed.

[silverquiet]

The sea surface temperature of the Earth set records every day for an entire year and we just learned that the CO2 increase for 2023 was 4.7ppm, a new record as well. If people haven't gotten the message by now, I'm pretty sure we are in fact doomed. I agree that it is psychologically easier to throw your hands up and say that nothing works (and my life sure made a lot more sense when I realized that nothing works), but I think you could just as easily call that acceptance as much as doomism.

[southernplaces7]

Go read the actual science, read the IPCC's conclusions across several different scenarios and read their (and other) evidence-based assessments of probable consequences. In no way do they claim that humanity is doomed and in fact in many cases specifically assert that that isn't the case and that furthermore, there are still things that can be done to mitigate harm.

The amount of shrill hysterical fetishism of doom over climate change by many, many comments on this site almost takes on hive-minded, fervent proportions that fall well outside of even any evidence-based or rational discourse.

The ironic thing about that is that it's done by people who frequently deride so-called climate change deniers for their unwillingness to accept science. How could you expect those people to do so if even your own emotional conclusions in the opposite direction ignore the exact same science and reports you want deniers to take seriously? It's laughable.

[silverquiet]

There is some (I think valid) belief that the IPCC is an overly conservative (not in the right-wing sense) political committee who are as concerned with optics as they are science and do not want to sound doomerish themselves (and that makes sense to me). But their best path scenarios assume that we'd be drawing down carbon emissions steeply by now and beginning carbon sequestration programs (which don't seem to be developing fast enough) in the near future. As I said, given that we just experienced the largest ever increase in year-over-year CO2 levels, it seems we are still going in the opposite direction. Even the IPCC has said that the consequences of exceeding 1.5C temperature anomaly are dire, and we are clearly going to do that. And so they move the goalpost to 2C (again, I can't fault them for that).

I've followed the science rather closely and what becomes clear is that we just can't understand the climate system in its vast complexity; it's quite possible that there are dragons lurking that could cause a cascade of feedback loops that end very badly for humanity.

I suppose I'm just wired differently than most; it seems that others believe that because there is ambiguity in projections, they can just assume that all will work out. Many seem to believe that god or some force will watch out and protect them. I wish I had this belief as well.

[southernplaces7]

So to summarize, you're doubting the politics of the IPCC and consequently also its scientific evidence because you don't happen to agree with either and it doesn't fit what you want to believe. You also justify this by saying that the climate system is just too complex to trust models as currently presented by this body and those who agree with it or support it.

You do realize that you've taken exact pages out of the so-called denier playbook (I truly hate that phrase and all of its debate-censorious religious undertones, even though I don't doubt climate change myself) albeit in the other direction, while also criticizing those who practice that very same thing as doubters of climate change worries.

[silverquiet]

Ok, what do you believe the future holds for humanity?

[squigz]

One might also call it laziness.

[silverquiet]

What do you think of Greta Thunberg?

[mnky9800n]

The earth will abide. Perhaps humans will not. C'est la vie.

[Log_out_]

It also centralizes the show around you, making you the last human. Same thing apocalyptic cults thrive on

[m463]

I think this goes for much internet advice.

"Your partner leaves hairs in the sink? Leave the relationship now!"

Maybe a better way to address things is to have an objective list of trouble signs, and let people make up their mind from that. Maybe being able to apply this to old problems will help.