The world being utterly fucked because if the climate is more or less the default consensus of climate forecasts. How is it bad science?
Because contrary to depictions like "The Martian", numerical models don't output things like "world is utterly fucked". They spit out norms and aggregate quantities and if you're lucky interval estimators. "World is utterly fucked" is editorializing, defensibly if "utterly fucked" is conservatively construed and indefensibly if utterly fucked is liberally construed.
Look, it's not going to be pleasant, you're going to see billions of premature deaths from this, but the who and where of those deaths are all inexact, inductive predictions. Absolutely none of models and I doubt any of the scientists (certainly not the ones I know personally) are saying we're all going to die (from this).
I'm a philosopher of science specializing in climate models. I think your presentation was fine. The models are very clear that we're entering a regime that will cause vast swaths of the Earth to become hostile to human life for large parts of the year. This is a catastrophic emergency.
actually it isn't the climate that will kill you, it's the starvation
Are you going to track how many people on this forum starve to death in the next 50 years or is this another one of those throwaway predictions that says nothing?
The models are very clear that we're entering a regime that will cause vast swaths of the Earth to become hostile to human life for large parts of the year. This is a catastrophic emergency.
I don't think anyone is arguing against that. He's arguing that humanity is doomed. That's an order of magnitude difference.
700 other things, will work will come to be will impact and change the climate and our lives specifically
See, you can't do that, because no one can, because these systems are coupled in inexhaustibly complex ways. Even the coupling of system of climate models is inexact. I know this because I have my PhD work was in numerical models of systems very similar to climate models. I know enough about it to not let someone else's finite-element NS solution ruin my weekend.
It's cheap, easy and free, to say online that 'we're all going to die of climate change', but it's one of ways of saying something that sounds smart without ever actually saying anything at all. It's the tired twitter-style argumentation of offhandedly making a prediction that will not and cannot be validated that no one will remember when the bill comes due.
Negligicing the death of billions is cool too, yeah one way to put it is definitely that it "will not be pleasant".
200 million people died in the 20th century due to the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco, but no one makes it a personality facet to post online about "death stalks the land, great bilious clouds of poison and tar churn out of every dive bar while inside men are drowned in cirrhotic frenzies, it's only a matter of time for me". We have a moral obligation to do what (little) we can to stop the capitalist death machine that is driving this climate catastrophe, and to help individuals in it's path when and where we can, but I'm also not terribly impressed by your pretending to deeply, personally care about abstracted projected megadeaths to shore up a shoddy intellectual position.
Look, 700 migrants just drowned off a single boat in the Med, for reasons adjacent to and attributable to climate change. Neither of us are doing anything about it, so I don't see what moral benefit your or my doomerism offers them.
Damn I guess I gotta ignore all the climate reports that conclude that we are all going to die,
Show me a single report that says this verbatim please.
Same goes for sticking your head in the dirt saying "well be fine actually".
"Billions will die" is not "everything is fine". "It's not going to be pleasant" is not "everything is fine". I don't know if any particular individual is going to die from climate change or not, because I understand the models model aggregate behavior. I could die of climate related reasons, or I could get hit by that jerk in the pickup. I don't know. You're the one who's willing to tell everyone "you're going to die of climate change driven starvation" without grappling with the inherent complexity and inexactness of the models.
People being displaced due to hunger, famine, and battles for territory as livable space becomes less and less available is unrelated to climate change, ok
Literally said the opposite.
"You claim to be worried about the apocalypse, but you did not decry the people already dying from starvation, curious
My point is the apocalypse is already happening, and has already happened for large swaths of humanity. You're hyperfocusing on a single (albiet important part) as some sort of weird internet subculture. Which is fine, but not a requirement for leftism.
So to sum up, you're frustration of 'people not getting' stems from them not feeling about the future what you feel about the future despite the fact you acknowledge your feelings don't really reflect the reality of what is going to actually happen in the future?
WHAT THE FUCK? Do you go into a post about how to make pizzas and complain when people discuss what type of flour is best to use???
You talk about being frustrated that other people don't feel the same way you do about a specific form of doom, and I so I tried to explain why a lot of people wouldn't feel that way about that particular form of doom given the wide variety of dooms to choose from and the inexactitude of predicting anyone's actual form of doom.
Seems apropos to me, but then again, just some guy.
You're not going to find that because, for the fifth time, its the phrase I used to communicate how I feel about our future, not what I literally believe
"Everyone is going to die"
"No they aren't"
"The science literally says everyone will die"
"No it doesn't"
"Well actually I don't think everyone is going to die, why are you being so rude"
If almost everyone replying to you is misunderstanding what you meant and you need to do a ton of clarification, it's probably not everyone else's fault
deleted by creator
Because contrary to depictions like "The Martian", numerical models don't output things like "world is utterly fucked". They spit out norms and aggregate quantities and if you're lucky interval estimators. "World is utterly fucked" is editorializing, defensibly if "utterly fucked" is conservatively construed and indefensibly if utterly fucked is liberally construed.
Look, it's not going to be pleasant, you're going to see billions of premature deaths from this, but the who and where of those deaths are all inexact, inductive predictions. Absolutely none of models and I doubt any of the scientists (certainly not the ones I know personally) are saying we're all going to die (from this).
deleted by creator
I'm a philosopher of science specializing in climate models. I think your presentation was fine. The models are very clear that we're entering a regime that will cause vast swaths of the Earth to become hostile to human life for large parts of the year. This is a catastrophic emergency.
deleted by creator
I haven't blocked you.
deleted by creator
Are you going to track how many people on this forum starve to death in the next 50 years or is this another one of those throwaway predictions that says nothing?
deleted by creator
When I get hit by a jerk in a pickup truck in 6 years crossing the street are you going to offer my family a refund Madame Cleo?
deleted by creator
Yeah, and it won't be the climate.
deleted by creator
I thinks that's called the fallacy of composition.
deleted by creator
John Raulston Saul was right about the western intellectual tradition.
I don't think anyone is arguing against that. He's arguing that humanity is doomed. That's an order of magnitude difference.
deleted by creator
But everyone here should accept that they're going to die of climate change?
deleted by creator
See, you can't do that, because no one can, because these systems are coupled in inexhaustibly complex ways. Even the coupling of system of climate models is inexact. I know this because I have my PhD work was in numerical models of systems very similar to climate models. I know enough about it to not let someone else's finite-element NS solution ruin my weekend.
It's cheap, easy and free, to say online that 'we're all going to die of climate change', but it's one of ways of saying something that sounds smart without ever actually saying anything at all. It's the tired twitter-style argumentation of offhandedly making a prediction that will not and cannot be validated that no one will remember when the bill comes due.
200 million people died in the 20th century due to the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco, but no one makes it a personality facet to post online about "death stalks the land, great bilious clouds of poison and tar churn out of every dive bar while inside men are drowned in cirrhotic frenzies, it's only a matter of time for me". We have a moral obligation to do what (little) we can to stop the capitalist death machine that is driving this climate catastrophe, and to help individuals in it's path when and where we can, but I'm also not terribly impressed by your pretending to deeply, personally care about abstracted projected megadeaths to shore up a shoddy intellectual position.
Look, 700 migrants just drowned off a single boat in the Med, for reasons adjacent to and attributable to climate change. Neither of us are doing anything about it, so I don't see what moral benefit your or my doomerism offers them.
deleted by creator
Show me a single report that says this verbatim please.
"Billions will die" is not "everything is fine". "It's not going to be pleasant" is not "everything is fine". I don't know if any particular individual is going to die from climate change or not, because I understand the models model aggregate behavior. I could die of climate related reasons, or I could get hit by that jerk in the pickup. I don't know. You're the one who's willing to tell everyone "you're going to die of climate change driven starvation" without grappling with the inherent complexity and inexactness of the models.
Literally said the opposite.
My point is the apocalypse is already happening, and has already happened for large swaths of humanity. You're hyperfocusing on a single (albiet important part) as some sort of weird internet subculture. Which is fine, but not a requirement for leftism.
deleted by creator
So to sum up, you're frustration of 'people not getting' stems from them not feeling about the future what you feel about the future despite the fact you acknowledge your feelings don't really reflect the reality of what is going to actually happen in the future?
You talk about being frustrated that other people don't feel the same way you do about a specific form of doom, and I so I tried to explain why a lot of people wouldn't feel that way about that particular form of doom given the wide variety of dooms to choose from and the inexactitude of predicting anyone's actual form of doom.
Seems apropos to me, but then again, just some guy.
deleted by creator
"Everyone is going to die"
"No they aren't"
"The science literally says everyone will die"
"No it doesn't"
"Well actually I don't think everyone is going to die, why are you being so rude"
deleted by creator
If almost everyone replying to you is misunderstanding what you meant and you need to do a ton of clarification, it's probably not everyone else's fault
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
And now we're moving to projection. This is turning into some reddit debatebro shit so I'm just gonna stop replying
deleted by creator