8 ms·

We are so screwed. Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is this still so controversial?

by struct 10y ago

dboreham 10y ago
Because: money
- avisser 10y ago
  Because: externalized costs
- userbinator 10y ago
  And general apathy.
everyone 10y ago
Because of the socio-economic momentum of fossil fuels.
lgieron 10y ago
Because: we understand that there is a relation, but we're having a hard time actually quantifying it (the models predict a wide range of possible future temperatures, and they themselves are super complex and change often so we cannot fully even trust those ranges). Without a solid prediction model, it's very hard to justify financial decisions - let alone global, trillion dollar ones.
dangjc 10y ago
Because of politics. You can win votes in coal country if you promise them jobs. You can win votes in Alaska, Texas if you let them drill.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  And the people who make the real money, reinvest it by buying a pretence of scientific ignorance from politicians.
tfigment 10y ago
Shankar Vedantam when on vacation to Alaska recently and realized how people think about climate change and decided to a podcast about why its hard to make people aware of it. [1] Basically, its in the future, its complicated, its costly if I recall correctly and our brains will turn off those kinds of things so its a trifecta of the worst characteristics if you want people to pay attention. [1] http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-forgotten-issue-of-this-years-election http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-f...
hackuser 10y ago
> why is this still so controversial? IMHO, this theory explains that and many other mysteries of the beliefs of the right wing: A large segment of U.S. society now prioritizes ideology over fact. Climate change is fact, but fails their ideological test. Thus, they reject it.
- api 10y ago
  This is shallow and is part of the reason Trump won. They prioritize culture, heritage, tradition, community, and stability (economic and social) over academic knowledge, mobility, novelty, etc. They are not dumb or more dishonest on average than anyone else, and the cognitive biases and blind spots they have are identical to yours. They are 99.99...% genetically identical to you. What they have is a different goal function. If you want to solve a monster global problem like climate change, part of it is finding solutions that can be viewed as positive from the perspective of the many operating goal functions in the world. The world is huge so this is hard. One sided answers that try to herd the rest through shame will fail, as they have for the right on other issues like abortion.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    My comment didn't assert most of the things you attribute to it. The existence of climate change is not an issue of priorities, but of facts. > academic knowledge It's just knowledge about reality; reality doesn't change depending on where the knowledge comes from. Academia happens to have far smarter people and far more resources for examining the world; it's a pretty good resource. Rejecting knowledge because it's from academia is exactly what I described, putting ideology (anti-intellectualism) over fact. > stability (economic and social) They voted overwhelmingly for massive change and some made calls for revolution if they don't get it. The policies they favor, including radical changes to government and social programs, would greatly reduce stability.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    People who make money on the status pro control media specifically targeting people to change their opinions. Those opinions include hate for the 'elite', which is code for intellectuals, academics and environmental activists who are exactly the people warning of climate change. This is easier of course because of the social cultural divide between those peoples. And before you say I'm calling people 'dumb' to be influenced by media that they are consuming; I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming. That's why I don't like watching Fox news -- I started realizing that I will subtly adopt their way of thinking, even if I'm consciously critical of everything they're saying.
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Climate/163286102X https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Clima... is a really interesting book on why we can't fix it.

We are so screwed. Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is this still so controversial?

by struct 10y ago

We are so screwed. Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is this still so controversial?

dboreham 10y ago

Because: money

avisser 10y ago
Because: externalized costs
userbinator 10y ago
And general apathy.

everyone 10y ago

Because of the socio-economic momentum of fossil fuels.

lgieron 10y ago

Because: we understand that there is a relation, but we're having a hard time actually quantifying it (the models predict a wide range of possible future temperatures, and they themselves are super complex and change often so we cannot fully even trust those ranges). Without a solid prediction model, it's very hard to justify financial decisions - let alone global, trillion dollar ones.

dangjc 10y ago

Because of politics. You can win votes in coal country if you promise them jobs. You can win votes in Alaska, Texas if you let them drill.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
And the people who make the real money, reinvest it by buying a pretence of scientific ignorance from politicians.

tfigment 10y ago

Shankar Vedantam when on vacation to Alaska recently and realized how people think about climate change and decided to a podcast about why its hard to make people aware of it. [1] Basically, its in the future, its complicated, its costly if I recall correctly and our brains will turn off those kinds of things so its a trifecta of the worst characteristics if you want people to pay attention. [1] http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-forgotten-issue-of-this-years-election http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-f...

hackuser 10y ago

> why is this still so controversial? IMHO, this theory explains that and many other mysteries of the beliefs of the right wing: A large segment of U.S. society now prioritizes ideology over fact. Climate change is fact, but fails their ideological test. Thus, they reject it.

api 10y ago
This is shallow and is part of the reason Trump won. They prioritize culture, heritage, tradition, community, and stability (economic and social) over academic knowledge, mobility, novelty, etc. They are not dumb or more dishonest on average than anyone else, and the cognitive biases and blind spots they have are identical to yours. They are 99.99...% genetically identical to you. What they have is a different goal function. If you want to solve a monster global problem like climate change, part of it is finding solutions that can be viewed as positive from the perspective of the many operating goal functions in the world. The world is huge so this is hard. One sided answers that try to herd the rest through shame will fail, as they have for the right on other issues like abortion.
- hackuser 10y ago
  My comment didn't assert most of the things you attribute to it. The existence of climate change is not an issue of priorities, but of facts. > academic knowledge It's just knowledge about reality; reality doesn't change depending on where the knowledge comes from. Academia happens to have far smarter people and far more resources for examining the world; it's a pretty good resource. Rejecting knowledge because it's from academia is exactly what I described, putting ideology (anti-intellectualism) over fact. > stability (economic and social) They voted overwhelmingly for massive change and some made calls for revolution if they don't get it. The policies they favor, including radical changes to government and social programs, would greatly reduce stability.
- ant6n 10y ago
  People who make money on the status pro control media specifically targeting people to change their opinions. Those opinions include hate for the 'elite', which is code for intellectuals, academics and environmental activists who are exactly the people warning of climate change. This is easier of course because of the social cultural divide between those peoples. And before you say I'm calling people 'dumb' to be influenced by media that they are consuming; I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming. That's why I don't like watching Fox news -- I started realizing that I will subtly adopt their way of thinking, even if I'm consciously critical of everything they're saying.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Climate/163286102X https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Clima... is a really interesting book on why we can't fix it.