[ai-x]

There are various levels of perspectives

- Climate Warming is a hoax

- Climate Warming is happening, but not Man Made and part of larger cycles

- Climate Warming is Man Made, but drastic De-growth strategies cause more harm.

- Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way

- Climate Warming is Man Made and we need drastic de-growth strategies and complete ban of fossil fuels.

For people in the last group, all other groups look like Climate Deniers because they don't agree to their de-growth/ban plans

[yongjik]

Things must be bleak for climate deniers if they have to make an itemized list of strawman arguments to feel good about it.

[ai-x]

The only group that cries and creates hysteria is the last group. So, not sure why you think the other groups consider it as bleak. From all the other groups perspective, they are winning, because nobody is buying the stupid de-growth, ban fossils agenda.

Yes, if hysteria and de-growth propaganda wins, it is bleak for the other groups

[Forgeties79]

I think you should take a step back, try to ignore your priors a bit, and take a look at this subject with an open mind/willingness to be incorrect. Because I’m telling you man, the science is against you.

Even the US military is planning around climate change because they sure as hell believe it’s real: https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/375340...

[ai-x]

It perfectly falls under - "Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way"

[Forgeties79]

It’s not just about humans. Are you ready to just shrug as we continue to casually wipe out entire species and ecosystems?

If it’s only about people then y’all better figure out the technology quick, because the gulf coast is not long for this world at the current pace

[ai-x]

Question 1: What caused the largest wipeout of species (like 99%+) and ecosystems in the history of planet earth?

Question 2: Which species has the potential to prevent such wipeout in the future?

[imtringued]

You forgot to list like a dozen variants in-between the last two groups. The abrupt end and extremely biased framing is almost comical.

>Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way

Green growth aka energy efficiency doesn't work, so one more category.

Carbon capture doesn't work without government subsidies. Hence you need a group of people who would be willing to pay tax money to solve climate change. One more category.

Human adaptation can mean many things. People accept climate change even if it means mass immigration. One more category.

People accept climate change even if it means armed border conflicts where immigrants get shot (see Poland) due to closed border policies. One more category.

People resign and accept the negative consequences of climate change as the new normal, similar to people living in polluted cities, except globally. One more category.

[JackMorgan]

You're missing: "Climate is warming, but this is a good thing because it means Jesus will come back sooner and I'll live in endless bliss and not have to go to work anymore, so I'm going to do my part by driving a huge truck and pretend like it's fake."

[jandrese]

More commonly these days is the message that CO2 is plant food, and climate change is a nefarious plot to kill off the plants by starving them in order to reduce the Earth's population. I can dig up several tweets this week pushing that message.

It is a shame that Twitter's algorithm is so damn easy to manipulate that it's basically owned by propaganda firms now. Elon doesn't even care, more outrage == more engagement and that's what feeds the system. It's a feedback loop of crap.

[Nevermark]

> It is a shame that Twitter's algorithm is so damn easy to manipulate that it's basically owned by propaganda firms now.

Not "basically" owned. Manipulation is the explicitly optimized and financed purpose.

The feed is a two-directional manipulation competition, with both directions enhancing each other, with a conflict of interest afterburner, for all parties to maximally control users. Neutrality doesn't exist.

(1) An auction for ads/influence to get your manipulative content in front of the most likely vulnerable users.

(2) A never ending competition to create addictive content, funded in direct proportion to successful impact on users.

(3) And the value in both directions is magnified by the "personalized" leverage manufactured through pervasive logging, beyond service surveillance, dossier collation, psychology hacking and real time feed manipulation.

(4) None of this is impeded by any "standards", neutrality, or a concern about external damage.

Admittedly great things for users and society, except for the four on that list that are not.

[virgildotcodes]

It's not even that Elon doesn't care as in he is ambivalent about it, it directly feeds into reinforcing his political preferences.

Try to create a brand new twitter account, you'll find that 80+% of the accounts that get suggested to you are right wing propaganda with climate denial being one of their greatest hits.

[truculent]

Hypothetically speaking, if people in the last group were right, and that is the logical conclusion to be reached from careful evaluation of the evidence, wouldn’t the other positions indeed be ones of wilful denial of the state of the climate?

[ai-x]

At the end of the day, we are talking about humanity/civilization and not planet earth itself.

We have easy measures of that

- Real GDP.

- Global Life Expectancy

- Global Child Mortality

- Global Poverty

- Global Food Production

If you are really into science and evidence, you should be tracking that for humanity extinction/survival trends (and the effect technology is having in tackling climate change), which is what my position is

[Ma8ee]

I would be in the second to last group if we actually did something when there still was time, and more was done to actually do something now. Yes, there's a lot of energy efficiency measures that could be done, and much more clean energy could be build, and we will be forced to adopt whether we want to or not. (Carbon capture from the atmosphere is a fucking joke though, which should be to everyone when you know that CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million!)

But we didn't start when we had to, and we are still doing only a fraction of what must be done. So, we are screwing ourselves over majorly. And this is not some fringe hysteria, this is the scientific consensus and has been for a long time. You can almost hear screams of frustration and desperation through the lines if you pick ut the latest IPCC report.

[Biologist123]

Maybe add climate change is real but there’s little we can do to stop it/change the systems which result in it.

[Toutouxc]

> humans adapt along the way

These people are about to be really surprised when the bees die.

[michaelsbradley]

- Climate Warming in the last ~200 and current years is Man Made, but given Man’s relative shortsightedness and propensity for becoming preoccupied, his ongoing impact on climate change will run its course to one end or another, probably redefining coastlines in the process and including other effects on agriculture, diversity of species, and so on. Much, much later the Earth will more than likely enter another Ice Age and most of the planet will be frozen over. Between the Man induced (relatively) extreme warm period and the next Ice Age, Man will find his way one way or another. Or Not.

[mmooss]

> de-growth

Associating action to prevent with 'de-growth' is disinformation from the deniers. Climate change itself is massively de-growth. The question is how to best prevent it.

[ai-x]

By your own brilliant logic, since Growth is accelerating everywhere, Climate Change is not happening?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-...

[mmooss]

If you respect and consider ideas that conflict with your own, that's how you can learn new things.

Many factors influence economics; climate change is one part of the equation. There are many examples of climate change's direct impact so far - floods, fires, sea-level rise (requiring investment in massive public works), droughts, etc. I don't think it's debatable that these things have negative economic impact.

Climate change is expected to greatly increase its impact in many ways. Let's not wait until it overcomes all other factors in economic growth and makes our economies shrink.

[ai-x]

once again show my the data of your choice (related to humans).

The planet went through much worse climate change cycles

[Ma8ee]

Here is how the cost of insurance has changed in recent years:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/05/climate-...

And remember, climate change is not something that happens and then it is done. What we are seeing now is just a start of much worse to come.

[cbility]

https://images.meme-arsenal.com/c59dc2bac9a54c97d5d1302822aa...

[ai-x]

put your money where your mouth is. Any idiot can generate hysteria in 2026. Make your prediction about any HDI metric -- Real GDP, Child Mortality, Life Expectancy, Poverty, Malnutrition (hunger) and give me your prediction for 2030 (or any year < 2035). If your doom prediction doesn't come true, Announce to the world, "I'm pretty much clueless about how the universe works and will stop posting hysteria on Social media"

[cbility]

Why 2030? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. This doesn't end in 2030.

The goal is not to generate hysteria; but to avoid it. Hitting one or more tipping points [1] is orders of magnitude more destructive than prioritising phasing out fossil fuels, and impossible to undo.

But I do understand that some people have reasons not to care about impacts that have an outsized effect on future generations, so to your request: a recent example of a list of impact predictions is the UK Government joint intelligence committee's national security assessment [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-security-a...