7 ms·

Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...

simianwords 1mo ago
I have been trying to look for sources myself and I feel like this whole sector is rampant with "noble lies". If you dig into the sources you will find Economic predictions: The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially) Tail risks and irreversible damage: I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number. I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used. [1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-for-growth-and-development_16b7cbc7-en/full-report/accelerated-climate-action-can-deliver-strong-economic-benefits_bee34dd7.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo... [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 Edit, can't reply: > Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards? Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.
- estearum 1mo ago
  To respond to your edit: The first document is a report on the economic upside of further investment + regulation on climate. It has nothing to do with downside risk of inaction. To the extent it mentions "whether things will get better than now or not," it certainly does not argue things will just be better. > However, current efforts are not keeping pace with rising risks. The world remains on an upwards emissions trajectory, and climate action is losing momentum as countries face a range of competing geopolitical, financial and economic challenges that slow its pace and scale. Without further action climate risks will intensify, and rising disasters, economic instability and financial system vulnerabilities will threaten long-term growth and development. > Actual benefits [of deeper investment + regulation] could be even greater, as uncertain current estimates do not fully account for the economic and social consequences of the increased likelihood of crossing tipping points, such as melting ice sheets or reversing circulation patterns in the ocean. So yes you're reading a publication explicitly written, labeled, and marketed as a positive economic case for deeper investment and regulation, and then saying "see it's just saying things will get better if we invest/regulate, it doesn't talk about downside risk!" But it explicitly says it's not looking at downside risk. Here's the same credible organization in a 2022 report on the downside risks: (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_abc5a69e-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_...) > This report reviews evidence that overshooting 1.5°C may push the earth over several tipping points, leading to irreversible and severe changes in the climate system. If triggered, tipping point impacts will rapidly cascade through socio-economic and ecological systems, leading to severe effects on human and natural systems and imposing important challenges for human adaptation > Based on the most recent science and consultations with renowned experts, this report argues that it is no longer appropriate to consider the risk of crossing tipping points as low-probability. Note that inversely, this report does not make a positive argument for the economic growth potential of intervention, because it's a report on downside risk.
- estearum 1mo ago
  Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?

simianwords 1mo ago

I have been trying to look for sources myself and I feel like this whole sector is rampant with "noble lies". If you dig into the sources you will find Economic predictions: The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially) Tail risks and irreversible damage: I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number. I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used. [1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-for-growth-and-development_16b7cbc7-en/full-report/accelerated-climate-action-can-deliver-strong-economic-benefits_bee34dd7.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo... [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 Edit, can't reply: > Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards? Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.

estearum 1mo ago
To respond to your edit: The first document is a report on the economic upside of further investment + regulation on climate. It has nothing to do with downside risk of inaction. To the extent it mentions "whether things will get better than now or not," it certainly does not argue things will just be better. > However, current efforts are not keeping pace with rising risks. The world remains on an upwards emissions trajectory, and climate action is losing momentum as countries face a range of competing geopolitical, financial and economic challenges that slow its pace and scale. Without further action climate risks will intensify, and rising disasters, economic instability and financial system vulnerabilities will threaten long-term growth and development. > Actual benefits [of deeper investment + regulation] could be even greater, as uncertain current estimates do not fully account for the economic and social consequences of the increased likelihood of crossing tipping points, such as melting ice sheets or reversing circulation patterns in the ocean. So yes you're reading a publication explicitly written, labeled, and marketed as a positive economic case for deeper investment and regulation, and then saying "see it's just saying things will get better if we invest/regulate, it doesn't talk about downside risk!" But it explicitly says it's not looking at downside risk. Here's the same credible organization in a 2022 report on the downside risks: (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_abc5a69e-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_...) > This report reviews evidence that overshooting 1.5°C may push the earth over several tipping points, leading to irreversible and severe changes in the climate system. If triggered, tipping point impacts will rapidly cascade through socio-economic and ecological systems, leading to severe effects on human and natural systems and imposing important challenges for human adaptation > Based on the most recent science and consultations with renowned experts, this report argues that it is no longer appropriate to consider the risk of crossing tipping points as low-probability. Note that inversely, this report does not make a positive argument for the economic growth potential of intervention, because it's a report on downside risk.
estearum 1mo ago
Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?