You kept digging into the statement as though I believed the concept of climate change would stab me in the heart, which I repeatedly explained was not the worry.
No your worry is that one of it's manifestations is going to kill you an everyone you know. Right?
I care about my friends and family not fucking dying either due heat stroke, starvation, dangerous increases in Co2 concentration or some eco-fascist.
Which is what we're talking about now.
"that has a low probability to happen"
This was specifically referencing human extinction, and that was not my assessment, but the assessment of the scientists who wrote the paper cited. But this isn't relevant as you're specifically uninterested in human extinction.
I'm not denying any of these things. I'm questioning the usefulness and rationality of taking foreseeable climate change consequences by all of those things and applying them haphazardly right now to make predictions of specific causes of death to specific people in the unforeseeable future. What do you get out of that other than a malaise?
That's not at all what you've been doing in your discussions with me, not then nor now.
No one here is denying climate change, or that it's going to be bad, or even that you should take it into account when making decisions in your day to day life (i.e don't buy a house in Phoenix). All I'm saying is do what you reasonably can to prepare for reasonably possible outcomes, use what little influence you have to try to push things in a better direction, but don't make these specific lurid death fantasies (which is what they are) more than an occasional indulgence.
Thanks for describing my fears of the future as a "death fantasy" that's definitely what they are! I know you can speak with authority about this, because you have a PhD, so even though every piece of climate science I encounter tells me we're fucked, I'm glad to know it's just me fantasizing, and not at all reacting to verifiable fact.
There is not a single climate change paper out there that says "Your great Aunt Martha is going to be stabbed by an ecofascist on August 21st 2031". That is probably not going to happen! It could happen, but there's no sense in worrying about that outcome for Ole Aunt Maratha when there are so many to choose from. You're taking real, aggregate trends and predictions and using them to construct specific worries for specific people. Are you equally concerned about Aunt Martha's diet and exercise cause if she's in the US, current science indicates it's going to be heart disease and not the Rural White Citizens Brigade that does her in.
Yup that's totally what you've been saying, which is why you've completely ignoring my closing statement,
I'm not interested in the closing statement, because it's predicated on the feelings of doom the rationality of which I am questioning. If you just posted your closing thoughts I wouldn't have anything to say, but you insist on leading into them with a catalog of climate change death scenarios.
No you're just denying every specific way in which it will take shape
No, I'm just denying that you can generalize from aggregate trends to specific predictions about specific people. I don't freak out everytime I get into a car, even though in aggregate that's one of the most dangerous things I do. I do freak out every time I get on a plane though, humorously enough, because I am an irrational sillybilly. I don't spend any time fretting that my friends and family are going to get T-boned on the highway, despite the fact that TONS of people do and will get T-Boned on the highway. There's no sense in it.
I think the many many many many many aggregate horrible things that we know for a fact will happen - things you claim you do not deny will happen
Correct, lots of bad things are going to happen.
are going to aggregately make life so miserable and unbearable and increasingly hostile to human life, that most of us are going to die some unpleasant death.
Nope, haven't seen any numbers that support this specific claim with any reasonable degree of probability. 25% of humanity dying of climate change causes would be an undeniable apocalypse, and actually not that far-fetched. But even under that scenario "most of us are going to die a climate change death" would be incorrect. Because of how numbers work.
But you are of course not invalidating climate change, even though you are now presenting it as something that can be solved with a simple diet.
No, I'm contrasting your willingness to fret over long-range, far-fetched deaths for your friends and family while not giving a whit about the current leading causes of death. Surely if you're worried about your friends and family dying you'd want to focus on the stuff that is currently killing the most people and not just the Roland Emmerich stuff.
I thought you wanted to look to what we can do, and wanted to discuss what should be done to make the world a better place? Now the discussion has once again taken a turn and we are at another subject. Fascinating how you, a selfproclaimed pedant that thinks being clear in language is very important, chooses to change subject willy-nilly.
You absolutely should focus on what you can do to make the world a better place. But we've not ever left the subject of you insisting leftists should think that each of use is doomed to a climate death.
Yet another classic of climate change deniers, but you are of course not denying anything
I'm denying that it's necessary or even reasonable to live in daily fear of cars killing everyone I know despite the fact that cars do and will continue to kill tons of people. Just like climate change, which does and will continue to kill tons of people.
No your worry is that one of it's manifestations is going to kill you an everyone you know. Right?
Which is what we're talking about now.
This was specifically referencing human extinction, and that was not my assessment, but the assessment of the scientists who wrote the paper cited. But this isn't relevant as you're specifically uninterested in human extinction.
deleted by creator
I'm not denying any of these things. I'm questioning the usefulness and rationality of taking foreseeable climate change consequences by all of those things and applying them haphazardly right now to make predictions of specific causes of death to specific people in the unforeseeable future. What do you get out of that other than a malaise?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There is not a single climate change paper out there that says "Your great Aunt Martha is going to be stabbed by an ecofascist on August 21st 2031". That is probably not going to happen! It could happen, but there's no sense in worrying about that outcome for Ole Aunt Maratha when there are so many to choose from. You're taking real, aggregate trends and predictions and using them to construct specific worries for specific people. Are you equally concerned about Aunt Martha's diet and exercise cause if she's in the US, current science indicates it's going to be heart disease and not the Rural White Citizens Brigade that does her in.
I'm not interested in the closing statement, because it's predicated on the feelings of doom the rationality of which I am questioning. If you just posted your closing thoughts I wouldn't have anything to say, but you insist on leading into them with a catalog of climate change death scenarios.
No, I'm just denying that you can generalize from aggregate trends to specific predictions about specific people. I don't freak out everytime I get into a car, even though in aggregate that's one of the most dangerous things I do. I do freak out every time I get on a plane though, humorously enough, because I am an irrational sillybilly. I don't spend any time fretting that my friends and family are going to get T-boned on the highway, despite the fact that TONS of people do and will get T-Boned on the highway. There's no sense in it.
deleted by creator
Correct, lots of bad things are going to happen.
Nope, haven't seen any numbers that support this specific claim with any reasonable degree of probability. 25% of humanity dying of climate change causes would be an undeniable apocalypse, and actually not that far-fetched. But even under that scenario "most of us are going to die a climate change death" would be incorrect. Because of how numbers work.
No, I'm contrasting your willingness to fret over long-range, far-fetched deaths for your friends and family while not giving a whit about the current leading causes of death. Surely if you're worried about your friends and family dying you'd want to focus on the stuff that is currently killing the most people and not just the Roland Emmerich stuff.
You absolutely should focus on what you can do to make the world a better place. But we've not ever left the subject of you insisting leftists should think that each of use is doomed to a climate death.
I'm denying that it's necessary or even reasonable to live in daily fear of cars killing everyone I know despite the fact that cars do and will continue to kill tons of people. Just like climate change, which does and will continue to kill tons of people.
Jee, I wonder why people are pushing back when you call them climate change deniers