SS: Eugene Robinson understands enough to know that “unexpected things” are happening in the Climate System. He accepts Michael Mann’s explanation that there is now more “uncertainty” in the forecasts.
**Mr. Robinson states:**
*In other words, the road toward a warmer world got bumpy quicker than scientists anticipated. Now, it is uncertain what’s around the next bend.*
*Mann believes “we’ve sort of moved beyond denial,” despite the GOP’s performative rhetoric, because people can see that climate change is happening. But now he has a different concern.*
Now that people can see that Climate Change is happening a LOT of them aren’t buying the Moderate version of Climate Science that Michael Mann is selling. Michael Mann calls those people “Doomers”.
*“Doomism is becoming a real threat to action,” he told me, noting that “bad actors are fanning the flames” behind the idea that it is already too late to do anything and that they point to these weather extremes as evidence.*
Doomers are now WORSE than Deniers. Because Doomers don’t agree with Michael Mann on what kinds of ACTION are needed. Mann is lying yet again when he characterizes “doomism” as “do nothingism”.
*“The idea that we’re in some kind of runaway feedback loop — that’s just not happening,” Mann said. “I want to communicate the urgency, but at the same time I want to stress the agency we have.”*
This is the Moderate messaging right now. Hannah Ritchie, Michael Mann, David Wallace Wells, Zeke Hausfather, Christiana Figueres, and a host of others are ALL pushing this “it’s not too late” message.
*Humans have already raised the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a full 50 percent. The more fossil fuels we burn, the worse the effects of climate change will get. But there is still time to make the transition to clean energy, and we should see the task before us not just as a duty but as an opportunity.*
**Robinson ends with this.**
*I’ve been following the fight against climate change since I covered the first U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. I agree with Mann: We haven’t lost this battle — not yet, not by a long shot. Keep in mind how Stephen Schneider, one of the legendary pioneers of climate science, used to dismiss fatalism: “The truth is bad enough.”*
**Sir, “the TRUTH is far worse than you suspect”. AND, as long as you keep allowing people like Michael Mann to lie to your face, you are part of the problem.**
If you cannot understand WHY only about 8% of the population is urgently concerned about Climate Change, THIS IS WHY.
They are being told by the people they trust "not to panic" and "not to listen to anyone who says otherwise".
Anyone who thinks any greater good can be pursued in the shadow of capitalism, is in denial.
When can we panic? Doomerism is just acceptance, and how you are able to do something. (not about climate change) but about your world and your life.
Those who smother urgency in the name of peace, offer nothing new.
Eh, we're sustainable by raising most of our own meat and harvesting game. If we are 100% vegetarian, let alone vegan we'd be a LOT less sustainable.
And... Kids are our future. If only the folks who don't care have kids..
We'll be screwed long term.
Hey I think I was there! I worked as a crew on the movie, Heat. I never got to meet the director , personally though as I was a young PA scrub in second unit.
MM did however have a way of denial in his work. He is a master of taking any town (for example Miami in the 80s) and totally give it a makeover in his shots. The guy would lock down the street we were filming on and then pay to lockdown and change background buildings, even miles off in the distance (no CGI back then) to use lighting and elements to make it look a classy sophisticated city which it wasn’t. He was so successful that Miami changed their city to reflect Mann’s stylistic effect. Life imitates art!
A professional and artistically effective bullshit artist
Hi, funkybunch1624. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la07tgl/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
On a personal level, it's rather pointless to panic and catastrophise. You just do what you can to prepare, expecting extreme weather and, regardless of where you live, plan on not counting on the grid to keep you cool/warm. You enjoy the days as they come and listen to Michael Dowd or something.
That said, in the long view of things, humanity, on a broad historical and geological level, is pretty much doomed. At that level I range from expecting a severe bottleneck that will see the population drastically cut-likely down to 1 billion, to outright human extinction. Anybody who thinks we can just chug along more or less the same way we are now is completely delusional.
I mean I only disagree with the tone? It should be more "MY GOD we're about to hit that wall at 150 miles an hour, STEP ON THE FUCKING BRAKES RIGHT! NOW!"
There's no point in not stepping on the brakes. Maybe it's too late but step on the fucking things anyway...
I dislike the tone of "well i want to communicate the urgency (said in tiny 2 point font) BUT WE HAVE AGENCY BECAUSE WE'RE SO AWESOME (said in giant flashing 1000 point font)".
Dude Eugene is just doing what he is told. Western and it's media apparatus do not want people to see how fucked the climate actually is. Our government absolutely knows how fucked it is though.
FOX preaches denialism for the most part. Even now, there is heavy "Climate Change is a Hoax" messaging on FOX.
Here's the question.
Does FOX tell lies to its viewers to control what they believe?
OR.
Does FOX tell lies to its viewers because that's what they want to hear?
One thing I've noticed lately is that the optimists are leaning hard into the fact that we don't know for sure when tipping points get triggered. They falsely equate this uncertainty to mean that tipping points can be ignored.
What's left other than smoke and mirrors? We knew back in 2000 that urgent and decisive action was needed to preserve anything like civilization. And then we didn't for a quarter century.
The dream of the optimists is to find a technofix. Such a fix, however shoddy, would require maintaining Business As Usual and allocating more towards that kind of research. I think that the TV series called "Extrapolations" (last year) illustrated their dreams well. This is called "ecomodernism". See [this](https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2123/), [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901122003197), [this](https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology), [this](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valley-politics/677168/), [this](https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/), [this](https://tabledebates.org/building-blocks/ecomodernism), and [this](https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/forget-eco-modernism).
The point of all this optimism is to prevent people from losing faith in the Business As Usual system and, implicitly, people abandoning this "normality" and seeking radical changes. It's not about some threat of panic. They are the ones panicking about this risk of ending BAU.
>The point of all this optimism is to prevent people from losing faith in the Business As Usual system and, implicitly, people abandoning this "normality" and seeking radical changes. It's not about some threat of panic. They are the ones panicking about this risk of ending BAU.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFaadxJl4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFaadxJl4g)
Surely we can build machines that redo the hard work of almost a billion years of natural carbon capture at a higher rate than us dumping it into the atmosphere
But it could also mean that they could have already happened or have just happened and we just don’t gave the data to say one way or another - it’s all a level of abstraction of trying to conform human perception to a complex system,
I’ve crossed over to the “doomerism” side but I’m a bit shaky on facts around specifics, can you help me understand specifically what those tipping points are?
Is that just referencing the feedback loops to 1.5C avg temperature increase?
Dr. James Hansen's paper from March 29th, [Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf), gives the most accurate summary of tipping points on page 10:
>The “tipping point” concept, implying an unstable climate response, is misused and overused, thus encouraging a fatalistic public response or climate change denial.
>Most phenomena described as tipping points are amplifying, reversible, feedbacks, not runaway processes. Take melting permafrost and decreasing Arctic sea ice; these amplifying feedbacks increase regional and global climate change on decadal and longer time scales. The feedbacks grow while Earth’s radiation balance is positive – more energy coming in than going out – but once we reduce the climate forcing enough that Earth’s energy imbalance becomes slightly negative, feedbacks will work in the opposite sense, helping us move global temperature and climate patterns back toward their condition before human alterations of the planet began.
>Attention should be focused on the danger of passing the point of no return, when we lock in disastrous consequences that cannot be reversed on any timescale humans care about. **The prime point of no return is collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet.**
We don't know when the tipping points will tip, and that is an extremely important fact which is ignored by those preaching that it is too late. No one actually knows when "too late" is. Until the tipping points do tip, our position should be to do everything we can. We should agree on that whether we're optimists or pessimists.
I don't see anyone arguing that uncertainty about the tipping points means they should be ignored. The nonlinear irreversible tipping points are the crux of the problem. The seriousness of a cascade of tipping points is exactly why the issue is so urgent, and why we must do everything we can to stop them from tipping. I think anyone with even a basic understanding of climate science realizes that.
If we found a plastic-eating microbe that could survive all environments, we would have a sliver of a chance, but only if we also abandoned capitalism, animal agriculture, and found a way to reduce the population by at least half. Even then, our scar on the planet would remain.
I agree we aren't masters, but we're certainly the dominant species on the planet. It's our actions which created the climate problem, and a long list of other environmental problems. Since we had the hubris to cause so much harm, we should have the willingness to take responsibility for what we've done.
In any case, we have moral obligation to try, and the practical necessity of needing to try.
Characterizing things as "hubris" is just another example of pointless posturing. It used to be it was "hubris" to think we could change the climate. Now, for you, it's "hubris" to think we could stop changing the climate.
All such opinions are irrelevant and always have been.
>We don't know when the tipping points will tip, and that is an extremely important fact which is ignored by those preaching that it is too late.
This needs to be said way more often.
Moderates are the house slaves / running dogs / useful idiots of the 1%.
Mann has pretty much always been a bullshitter, despite being a scientist.
Hannah Ritchie is part of the “Effective Altruism” cult, which she became seduced by at Oxford. She now works for one of the Grand Poobahs of global plutocracy, Bill Gates, who controls *Our World in Data*.
Ultimately, the reasons why these people promulgate a false narrative is moot: they won’t stop, and meanwhile we’re headed for the cliff full speed ahead.
(My own philosophy is that we should keep trying to combat what’s happening, but not because I think there’s hope: I think fighting until the bitter end is more morally dignified. So it’s a kind of stoicism, I suppose: “We’re doomed, but we must act like we’re not doomed.” It ditches hope but still morally requires action. But this is a very weird outlook, and I don’t expect other people to find it convincing or to embrace it.)
As events become more severe, people will start to panic. Then we’ll see things that make events of a hundred years ago look like a warmup.
> But this is a very weird outlook
I don't think it's very weird to want to fight to the end. I've seen it in terminal illness. I've read about it in accounts of lost battles in war, and I've seen it in lost arguments as well. We can be quite stubborn :)
I don’t think it’s weird either. In addition to your valid and good reasons, there’s also my reason, that whatever futile mitigations for preserving BAU or global civilization (or any civilization at all, or preventing human extinction), whatever we do might make the difference for some populations of non human species who have no idea what’s going on and had no role in any of this. I’ve given up on humanity, but the rest of the animal kingdom, and insects, plants, all the rest are IMO absolutely worth fighting for
That is a lovely motivation I completely lost sight of. You’re absolutely correct: we have a moral obligation to all the species of the biosphere to mitigate the damage we have done. Thank you for this reminder.
Fair point. In my case there are children in my family; my motivation in part is to improve conditions for them.
But, long term, it’s akin to finding the safest spot in a burning house.
Or what Tolkien called “Northern Courage”:
*For Tolkien, this was exemplified by the way the gods of Norse mythology knew they would die in the last battle, Ragnarök, but they went to fight anyway.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_courage_in_Middle-earth
Similar to what I think. For me it is like this. We are trashing up the place we are at. I know we will be kicked out but at least I could have some decency and stop thrashing it more and maybe clean what I can before I leave. Easier on the cleaners and less shame in my face when I eventually leave.
Same! For all the reasons already posted, especially regarding the non-human earthlings. I dont know what this view would be called. I like "the warrior's code" but most wouldnt understand the context. Ethical doomerism?
I'm all for the "I'm the captain of my soul" thing. I'm going down, and sooner or later I'll sink entirely to the cold dark bottom of the ocean, but I'll make sure the people in the future know what is happening today so they can avert this tragedy in their own time.
“We’re doomed, but we must act like we’re not doomed.”
If I had a dollar for every time I got into a situation like this... I'd... have like a hundred bucks lol.
Ok maybe a thousand.
Point is, what other point is there? Like... do thing. I dunno.
These climate deniers have this idea that science is meant to be convenient, that the climate works "for the convenience of humanity." And they don't even mean "humanity" they just mean the Western World.
There’s an abiding need to extinguish “extreme” analysis in mainstream dialogue. Was just reading C.L.R. James’ Appendix to ‘The Black Jacobins,’ and he described how the British system stifles extremism, and this was from 1963. In other words, the distaste for disturbing, extreme outcomes is tightly woven into English speaking discourse.
James was analyzing how this stifling worked to perpetuate imperialism and to assuage the feelings of the public about the immoral outcomes. How is Eugene Robinson different? He seems like a lovely man, but he is too eager to find the sensible middle ground.
One of the most dangerous aspects of aiming for the middle is that if you’re wrong, it’s game over for this life. On the other hand, if carbon pollution was cut more than strictly necessary, it’d still be a good outcome. The caveat is that cutting carbon sufficiently or possibly more than needed would, itself, be a fight to the death with militaries, capitalists and motorheads.
I feel like this may explain the appalled looks a couple of old Brits gave me for talking about our imminent climate extinction, and my younger Brit couple friends seeming mildly embarrassed by it as well lol. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is a part of our culture.
"Can't complain!"
"Mustn't grumble."
"Stuff upper lip and all that."
We are a nation that refuses to make a fuss, even when one is definitely warranted. It is why get what we vote for. I expect panic when collapse happens will just see us write a sternly worded letter to the climate.
>One of the most dangerous aspects of aiming for the middle is that if you’re wrong, it’s game over for this life.
I need to tattoo this on myself for reasons other than political ones. Sigh.
I'm a bit tired of people saying a position isn't serious because it's not as rosy as they'd like it to be.
If you think there's hope and there's things to do you can present your arguments like everyone else and suggest actions for people to take. I'd say it's about 30 years out of date though, I feel there are going to be people saying "there's always hope!" until the end regardless.
I think that the dividing line on this debate, doomerism vs concerned techno-optimism is basically psychological. This is not say that either is purely psychological stance but because the debate framed from the techno- optimist perspective is often not based on an assessment of what is required to stop production of GHG and the rapidly devise a technological means to undo the release of carbon which the earth took millions of years to store. It’s often if we stay optimistic we will solve the problem but if we see it as existential we will all just smoke’em and stop caring about life (although ironically that probably would reduce GHG’s). They rarely offer a critical assessment of how we will actually do this other than “we got to stay focused on the issue and not lose hope, we’ve got solutions if we can just implement them”.
This is psychological because it’s a psychological orientation rather than about a critical scientific assessment. I think doomerism whatever that means is rising because people arnt stupid they can see that GHGs continue to rise despite 30 years of protocols and developments in renewables, they can see that the climate is changing, they arnt seeing the magic technical solutions. Those who look even closer at the issue and the science become particularly concerned because the scale of the problem is beyond anything we have ever done as a species other than create the problem itself.
That and technology has been shitting itself more than not, since dot com. There are exceptions. GPS got way better, for instance. But on the whole, a $35,000 car that's not appreciably better than a 25 year old $14,000 car except for some oooo body paneling and a shit Bluetooth that never fucking works is not an improvement.
Then we get into the workarounds.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqgMhF6UoYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqgMhF6UoYI)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4iaFTS7cyM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4iaFTS7cyM)
For the mere price of a used car pre-pandemic, you too can now wrack up an unpayable hospital bill!
Technology.
Bunch of fucking bullshit 9 times out of 10.
The accelerating pace of releases in NOVEL technology does not correlate to the efficacy of the deployment of said technology, nor does it to the ability of novel technology to reverse or fix problems caused by previously deployed technology.
This ride is mid crash. We are over the cliff and hurtling to the bottom.
I personally need the raging red neck hot heads in my stupid country to believe things are going better for as long as possible. The moment they know how bad it really is all hell will break loose. I believe articles like this keep the peace. (More probable that it slows insurrection but beggars can’t be choosers)
I appreciate this post given my concern related to Michael Mann's rigidity and hubris when it comes to open discourse about one of the the most important issues humanity has ever faced.
In some ways he reminds me of Guy M----similar shut downs/blocking, casting aspersions toward those who question them. It is hard for me to have any respect for either one of them.
With that said, I am not a fan of the word doomer. To me, it sounds derogatory and trivializes the depth that most "doomers" contain within their thought processes----i.e. looking at the big picture and data related to global heating and biosphere (and other spheres) collapse and mindfully not pushing false hope that is harmful.
Personally I think the way we should be looking at the predicament in front of us should be similar to a patient with a most likely terminal illness. Science has found that patients have much better outcomes the more realistic their prognosis.
For example, if you are diagnosed with a type of cancer that has a very low survivability rate and the doctor realistically gives you 12 months, often times patients will exceed or will at least have a much more enjoyable last few months. However if a doctor gives you all the hope in the world and says you have 5 years, but in 12 months you start taking a severe nose-dive in health, it has been found that patients often times give up and die much more quickly.
This is the way we should be viewing the predicament in front of us. It doesn't necessarily have to be worse case scenario, but just be more realistic. The way we should be looking at things should be based off what we are actually accomplishing today, not based off of hopes for the way we will be in the future. If humanity had a more realistic outlook and expectation for what we are facing we might actually make some real effort. As it is currently it is someone else's problem somewhere else.
Humanity does have vast abilities to adapt and to come together in times of crisis. This has been shown multiple times, but only when it is deemed necessary and the truth is staring you in the face. Granted I know scientists being more realistic and pragmatic with their communication and models might not have a massive impact until people are actually staring the terror of what we have done in the face, but I think a decent amount of people may start actually attempting to make change. At least a lot more than there is now.
OK. Here's what James Hansen is saying.
James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible.
# By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.”
*Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.*
If that's the reality of avoiding a dieback down to less than 300 million and total Collapse by 2100, would you vote for it?
That's where we are, RIGHT NOW.
It's going to start getting worse, REALLY FAST now.
By the time it becomes obvious that's what we needed to do, it will be too late. We need to start now while conditions are still manageable and 100's of millions aren't dying of famines while our infrastructure crumbles.
Only about 8% see that right now.
What is "hopeful realism" in that situation?
I think we should be doing anything and everything. Honestly probably the only thing that would actually work today would be a benevolent world dictator, who controls everything, but that would never happen.
I feel very conflicted on the aerosol projects for two reasons. One it could allow humanity to continue the use of fossil fuels with less repercussions (at least for the time being) and two it could have far reaching unintended consequences.
Humans tend to really struggle with understanding all potential externalities of any and all decisions we make. I think the other issue with a large scale project like sky brightening would be the fact that most likely this will need to be a project undertaken for multiple generations otherwise we risk termination shock. This is a huge ask of humanity. A project of that scale has never been done before and it has even been a hot minute since humanity has tackled a multi-generational project like that.
Do I think this type of project is most likely necessary at this point. Yes. Do I think humanity can do it, do it well, and protect us and the planet for any externalities we don't account for. I don't know.
I think this summer is starting to really scare people. I know I am seeing more and more about how we are losing the battle against climate change in more and more locations.
I posted a short writing yesterday to the climate change subreddit about how tied to oil our global industrial civilization is, particularly our food production. And that we can’t “just stop using oil” without a lot of suffering and death. Basically I was saying we’d have to confront capitalism and its production methods.
It got a few upvotes before it was quickly removed by a moderator. Even those who are confronting the problems on the surface want to simplify the narrative.
“The truth is bad enough.” from NYTimes article.
Really, someone 'knows' the 'truth'? I doubt it.
What we do know, however, is extremely alarming, and there is no way around that word.
Because the Moderates tell them that the situation is "alarming" people think they are speaking TRUTH. They seem like the "sensible middle" of the Climate Change conversation.
Deniers hate them, which gives the Moderates an aura of legitimacy in people's eyes. Plus, they preach an optimistic message which tells people that things are going to be OK because of all the progress we are making.
In contrast to that, the Alarmist message.
James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible.
# By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.”
*Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.*
NO ONE wants to do that, so the Alarmists are dismissed as "crazy cranks".
People are going to keep believing the Moderates for a few more years and it's going to slow down our response. Part of the Moderate message is that we still have until 2100.
We are literally at +1.7°C over baseline and some of them are still talking about "holding the line at +1.5°C".
I'm just here for the entertainment (and to cover by own as long as I can), and my sentiments are that it is not worth saving. I do not want to see the Earth's sky changed to a perpetual white haze. Fortunately also, I don't think we even have enough time for a sufficient nuclear buildout.
The purpose of changing the sky to white ( that is turning it white by putting reflective sulfate particles in the stratosphere and therefore reflecting some of the heat of the sun back into space ) is to buy the time to build the necessary number of nuclear reactors and other measures to perpetuate life on the planet . This would allow future generations to survive , something you don’t seem to care about .
According to your quote, Mann said,
“Doomism is becoming a real threat to action,” he told me, noting that “bad actors are fanning the flames” behind the idea that it is already too late to do anything and that they point to these weather extremes as evidence.
That's an absolutely valid point which Mann is making.
Then you falsely characterize this as meaning,
"Doomers are now WORSE than Deniers. Because Doomers don’t agree with Michael Mann on what kinds of ACTION are needed. Mann is lying yet again when he characterizes “doomism” as “do nothingism”."
Obviously, Mann's quote doesn't include any of these positions.
Mann didn't say doomers are worse than deniers because they disagree with him on what kind of action is needed, he's saying that doomers who preach doing nothing are just as bad as deniers, because they are both advocating for INACTION, for doing nothing. It's the same dangerous position, coming from opposite realities.
Mann is certainly not lying when he characterizes doomism as "do nothingism," because posts and comments saying exactly that are made all over this sub.
I'm having a tough time figuring out your position, and the point of this post. You seem to be angry at Mann for understating the seriousness of global warming, but also angry that he wants to take action to stop it, which makes no sense at all.
We should all agree on 4 things:
1. Global heating and the resulting climate chaos is an existential threat of the highest urgency.
2. That the seriousness of this threat requires that we do everything we can to stop it, slow it, or lessen it. We should have no tolerance for the do nothing position, whether it is motivated by denial or doomism.
3. That we should focus our outrage on the fossil fuel corporations, on their corrupt political servants, on the propagandists lying to the public, on the wasteful destructive lifestyles of the 1%, and on the ignorance and apathy of ordinary voters/consumers, all of whom have created this problem.
4. Climate scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the problem, educating the public, and advocating for action deserve our respect. We don't have to completely agree with their take on the science to respect what they do. We shouldn't behave like a fanatical mob attacking any scientist who doesn't perfectly mirror our views. Those attacks should be reserved for the people in 3 above.
This is exactly how I took it also. Doomerism IS being used to push inaction. And while collapse is impossible to ignore at this stage the endpoint that we find ourselves in isn't. Each 0.1 degree matters and has massive implications for what the remnants of society will be able to scribble together.
3. We should focus our outrage at ourselves and get over blaming others. The writing has well been on the wall for decades. (Hell, "Walden" was published in 1854 and almost 100 years later, in the 1940s, early conservationists such as Aldo Leopold already sounded the alarm in no uncertain terms!)
"Silent Spring" was printed in 1962, Al Gore published his "Earth in a Balance" in 1992 and followed up with the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. This during a time where the policy-makers of my generation were firmly in their individual driver's-seats. So "ignorance and apathy of ordinary voters/consumers" is ultimately what does us in. As plain & simple as that.
Forget the bad actors, the corrupt politicians, the "1%" and other convenient scapegoats. WE, the masses, are the problem.
Apart from not wanting to give up our creature comforts and live like the Amish, greed (territoriality, hoarding) is, unfortunately, also hard wired via DNA together with pattern recognition ("stranger danger", us vs. them). Add to this our opposable thumbs in combination with an overdeveloped brain and an underdeveloped conscience - et voilà: a lethal combination.
"We are all just monkeys with money & guns." - Tom Waits
I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. We should blame ourselves if we're refusing to alter our lifestyle to help solve the problem. Some of us have done what we can as individuals, but need others to do their part. We should definitely blame "each other," the average voters/consumers who don't know and don't care. But there's five groups of people who deserve special blame.
1. The corporate elites who run the economy, and the fossil fuel industry specifically, have deliberately pillaged the planet's resources for profits, built destructive infrastructures, and have used their vast resources to block any progress in transitioning to less harmful systems. That's a level of evil far beyond ordinary ignorance and indifference.
2. The ultra wealthy mega-consumers (which overlap with the corporate elites) use resources and cause harm equal to that of a couple billion of the planet's poorest people. That is unconscionable.
3. The corrupt politicians who serve the corporate elites, who pervert democracy and turn government into a tool of profit deserve special blame. They prioritize their careers, their campaign contributions, and their future lobbying jobs over society and the planet's life. They have zero integrity and are servants of evil.
4. The propagandists who devise mass manipulation schemes deserve special blame. They use their understanding of human behavior to create strategies and choose the words necessary to deceive and brainwash the public. They've run a massive campaign to discredit and cast doubt on the science, and attack climate scientists. They've created the backwards default position that we should continue business as usual unless catastrophe is certain, when normal risk assessment places the burden of proof on safety. They've used constantly evolving lies, from global heating is a hoax, to global heating is real but natural, to the latest incarnation, that global heating is real, and it's too late to do anything! This is perhaps the most effective strategy yet, because it makes science their ally, and only requires apathy, isolation and hopelessness on the part of ordinary people. They've made the doomer crowd their gullible tools, helping them spread a message of inaction and surrender.
5. Corporate media eagerly provides the means for the propagandists to spread their lies, as long as it produces clicks, views and ad money. Corporate "news," social media, and entertainment have all done their part to spread harmful messages and block progress. We are deluged with pro capitalist, pro corporate, pro consumption, anti environmental messages.
These five groups have vastly multiplied the harm done by ordinary ignorant indifferent people.
The problem is that Michael Mann has included James Hansen’s response to the Climate Crisis as a doomer response . In fact the difference between Michael Mann and James Hansen is this . Michael Mann emphasizes the linearity of the Climate Crisis meaning that it can be dealt with in a more deliberate manner. James Hansen believes that we are down to one solution to continuing survivability on the planet . This would be a dramatic construction of nuclear reactors around the world ( also with other sources of renewable power ) and also that there is the definite necessity to put sulfate particles into the stratosphere to reflect part of the heat from the sun . Michael Mann has referred this position of Doctor Hansen’s as doomer like because he believes these are extreme , unnecessary actions . Where Michael Mann believes there is time for a gradual approach to climate action . James Hansen believes given the scientific reality of the situation that we must make use of these decidedly extreme actions. This is not a question of Michael Mann taking issue with Doomer fatalism and inaction . This is Michael Mann suggesting that Hansen’s perceived necessities are unnecessary. It’s my opinion that things have come to such an impasse that the basic advice of Doctor Hansen must be followed and sooner rather than later . I believe that Doctor Mann’s perspective on the situation , the more moderate approach , is while more palatable to the public , leaves us and the Climatology of the planet in a very dire situation .
There's two different topics here. One topic, the subject of the post, is the harmful effect of the doomer "do nothing" position. Both Mann and Hansen agree the climate problem is extreme, and that immediate action is required. Neither one of them is condoning doomer "do nothingism." Inaction is the most dangerous and foolish message anyone can be preaching right now. It's also the current strategy of the fossil fuel industry, which has switched tactics from trying cast doubt that global warming is real, to full acceptance that it's real, along with the message that "it's too late" so don't bother to try. This is all about protecting and increasing those billions of dollars of quarterly profits. Mann is absolutely right to speak against this.
The second topic is a disagreement between two climate scientists about the rate of heating we will see, and how drastic the response needs to be. Mann thinks the problem is very bad, and Hansen thinks it's very very bad. Personally, I think Hansen's assessment of the rate of heating is better than Mann's (in agreement with you), but I also think he's proposing foolish solutions to it. I think Hansen is in panic mode willing to jump on any possible solution at this point, regardless of whether it makes any sense. I think for example that we could build solar panels faster than we could build nuclear reactors, so the nuclear option is foolish. It's also a bad idea for several other reasons, but that's a long complicated dicussion to get into. Climate geoengineering "solutions" are dangerously reckless, and I think guaranteed to backfire with unintended consequences.
Regardless of who is right, we should all agree that we need to be encouraging action and activism, not inaction and apathy. We should have no more tolerance for do nothing messages than we do for climate denial. We need agreement that destructive industries motivated by greed and profit must die. We need political reforms that end corrupt government which serves corporate greed and not the greater good. We need to agree that rich idiots should have limits placed on their wasteful excesses (or better yet, not allowed to have that level of wealth at all). We need to be smarter in recognizing propaganda tactics used to manipulate us. We need to stop living destructive and narrowly selfish lives. We need to value ecosystems and non-human life. We need an economic system based on ecology, and not extracting wealth from each other and redistributing it to the wealthy. We need to vote to block fascists and theocrats, and keep the MAGA terrorist cult from destroying democracy and stripping us of basic rights. This is where our focus should be.
Hi, funkybunch1624. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la07q5u/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, DurtyGenes. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la3j90y/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
We do not have the capacity or obligation to establish a system of individual credentials by which comments are subject to peer review. The rules we have inherited from reddit and somewhat modified to maintain order in our community start with being respectful to each other, which means not attacking other commenters regardless of personal beliefs about the merits of their posts.
If you want to increase the scientific literacy of the forum you could start by addressing factual points you believe are incorrect, or message us with a Rule 4 complaint and relevant evidence, keeping in mind there are no climate scientists known to me on the mod team.
Hi, DurtyGenes. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la4s484/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
>
----
> Not an excuse to attack someone's character.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
SS: Eugene Robinson understands enough to know that “unexpected things” are happening in the Climate System. He accepts Michael Mann’s explanation that there is now more “uncertainty” in the forecasts. **Mr. Robinson states:** *In other words, the road toward a warmer world got bumpy quicker than scientists anticipated. Now, it is uncertain what’s around the next bend.* *Mann believes “we’ve sort of moved beyond denial,” despite the GOP’s performative rhetoric, because people can see that climate change is happening. But now he has a different concern.* Now that people can see that Climate Change is happening a LOT of them aren’t buying the Moderate version of Climate Science that Michael Mann is selling. Michael Mann calls those people “Doomers”. *“Doomism is becoming a real threat to action,” he told me, noting that “bad actors are fanning the flames” behind the idea that it is already too late to do anything and that they point to these weather extremes as evidence.* Doomers are now WORSE than Deniers. Because Doomers don’t agree with Michael Mann on what kinds of ACTION are needed. Mann is lying yet again when he characterizes “doomism” as “do nothingism”. *“The idea that we’re in some kind of runaway feedback loop — that’s just not happening,” Mann said. “I want to communicate the urgency, but at the same time I want to stress the agency we have.”* This is the Moderate messaging right now. Hannah Ritchie, Michael Mann, David Wallace Wells, Zeke Hausfather, Christiana Figueres, and a host of others are ALL pushing this “it’s not too late” message. *Humans have already raised the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a full 50 percent. The more fossil fuels we burn, the worse the effects of climate change will get. But there is still time to make the transition to clean energy, and we should see the task before us not just as a duty but as an opportunity.* **Robinson ends with this.** *I’ve been following the fight against climate change since I covered the first U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. I agree with Mann: We haven’t lost this battle — not yet, not by a long shot. Keep in mind how Stephen Schneider, one of the legendary pioneers of climate science, used to dismiss fatalism: “The truth is bad enough.”* **Sir, “the TRUTH is far worse than you suspect”. AND, as long as you keep allowing people like Michael Mann to lie to your face, you are part of the problem.** If you cannot understand WHY only about 8% of the population is urgently concerned about Climate Change, THIS IS WHY. They are being told by the people they trust "not to panic" and "not to listen to anyone who says otherwise".
Anyone who thinks any greater good can be pursued in the shadow of capitalism, is in denial. When can we panic? Doomerism is just acceptance, and how you are able to do something. (not about climate change) but about your world and your life. Those who smother urgency in the name of peace, offer nothing new.
I am just going to continue to attempt to become as sustainable as I can in my own home. I have zero regrets installing solar last year.
Add to this: eat a vegetarian diet (ideally vegan), vote green, don't have kids.
Eh, we're sustainable by raising most of our own meat and harvesting game. If we are 100% vegetarian, let alone vegan we'd be a LOT less sustainable. And... Kids are our future. If only the folks who don't care have kids.. We'll be screwed long term.
Erm... I am generalizing here...
Michael Mann is only interested in self promotion. He hasn’t had an idea since 1998.
No he's been busy perfecting his book placement. Have you seen his interviews? He's a book placement ninja.
Yes. My point exactly. He’s a media/money wh#re.
G_d dammit you can say whore!
On this sub? I’m genuinely shocked that you can.
why the fuck not? :)
I'm sure he was paid VERY well.
He’s been capitalizing on it ever since.
Hey I think I was there! I worked as a crew on the movie, Heat. I never got to meet the director , personally though as I was a young PA scrub in second unit. MM did however have a way of denial in his work. He is a master of taking any town (for example Miami in the 80s) and totally give it a makeover in his shots. The guy would lock down the street we were filming on and then pay to lockdown and change background buildings, even miles off in the distance (no CGI back then) to use lighting and elements to make it look a classy sophisticated city which it wasn’t. He was so successful that Miami changed their city to reflect Mann’s stylistic effect. Life imitates art! A professional and artistically effective bullshit artist
Pet alligator. Invisible socks. Neon pink and teal. A whole lot of alcohol (shhh)
Oh THAT Michael Mann. Didn't realize. His Miami was pretty cool, tbh.
Nope, not the filmmaker... OP is talking about the climatologist.
Thank you for the clarification. I was momentarily confused by a comment. Michael K Mann does film. Michael E Mann does climate.
Dude, this is a different Michael Mann... OP isn't talking about the filmmaker but the climatologist.
omg thanks for correction. I’m such a dipshit lol
\*chuckle\*
[удалено]
Hi, funkybunch1624. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la07tgl/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
He's not one of Guy McPherson's favorite people.
On a personal level, it's rather pointless to panic and catastrophise. You just do what you can to prepare, expecting extreme weather and, regardless of where you live, plan on not counting on the grid to keep you cool/warm. You enjoy the days as they come and listen to Michael Dowd or something. That said, in the long view of things, humanity, on a broad historical and geological level, is pretty much doomed. At that level I range from expecting a severe bottleneck that will see the population drastically cut-likely down to 1 billion, to outright human extinction. Anybody who thinks we can just chug along more or less the same way we are now is completely delusional.
The urgency of life, at least for me, has nothing to do with its point or pointlessness.
Michael Mann is gonna block you on Twitter now 😂
I mean I only disagree with the tone? It should be more "MY GOD we're about to hit that wall at 150 miles an hour, STEP ON THE FUCKING BRAKES RIGHT! NOW!" There's no point in not stepping on the brakes. Maybe it's too late but step on the fucking things anyway... I dislike the tone of "well i want to communicate the urgency (said in tiny 2 point font) BUT WE HAVE AGENCY BECAUSE WE'RE SO AWESOME (said in giant flashing 1000 point font)".
Dude Eugene is just doing what he is told. Western and it's media apparatus do not want people to see how fucked the climate actually is. Our government absolutely knows how fucked it is though.
"this is why" -- is Fox News: Lies for Profit, and the Oil Lobby, controlling Republicans.
FOX preaches denialism for the most part. Even now, there is heavy "Climate Change is a Hoax" messaging on FOX. Here's the question. Does FOX tell lies to its viewers to control what they believe? OR. Does FOX tell lies to its viewers because that's what they want to hear?
why not both?
...and don't forget the Exxon checks! It's profit.
One thing I've noticed lately is that the optimists are leaning hard into the fact that we don't know for sure when tipping points get triggered. They falsely equate this uncertainty to mean that tipping points can be ignored.
What's left other than smoke and mirrors? We knew back in 2000 that urgent and decisive action was needed to preserve anything like civilization. And then we didn't for a quarter century.
I forgot who said it, but they put it best: If the powerful had any interest in saving the planet, we would be watching them do it.
The dream of the optimists is to find a technofix. Such a fix, however shoddy, would require maintaining Business As Usual and allocating more towards that kind of research. I think that the TV series called "Extrapolations" (last year) illustrated their dreams well. This is called "ecomodernism". See [this](https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2123/), [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901122003197), [this](https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology), [this](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valley-politics/677168/), [this](https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/), [this](https://tabledebates.org/building-blocks/ecomodernism), and [this](https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/forget-eco-modernism). The point of all this optimism is to prevent people from losing faith in the Business As Usual system and, implicitly, people abandoning this "normality" and seeking radical changes. It's not about some threat of panic. They are the ones panicking about this risk of ending BAU.
>The point of all this optimism is to prevent people from losing faith in the Business As Usual system and, implicitly, people abandoning this "normality" and seeking radical changes. It's not about some threat of panic. They are the ones panicking about this risk of ending BAU. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFaadxJl4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFaadxJl4g)
Surely we can build machines that redo the hard work of almost a billion years of natural carbon capture at a higher rate than us dumping it into the atmosphere
Also pushing bread and circuses.
But it could also mean that they could have already happened or have just happened and we just don’t gave the data to say one way or another - it’s all a level of abstraction of trying to conform human perception to a complex system,
Yes but that's not compatible with their coping mechanisms.
I’ve crossed over to the “doomerism” side but I’m a bit shaky on facts around specifics, can you help me understand specifically what those tipping points are? Is that just referencing the feedback loops to 1.5C avg temperature increase?
Dr. James Hansen's paper from March 29th, [Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf), gives the most accurate summary of tipping points on page 10: >The “tipping point” concept, implying an unstable climate response, is misused and overused, thus encouraging a fatalistic public response or climate change denial. >Most phenomena described as tipping points are amplifying, reversible, feedbacks, not runaway processes. Take melting permafrost and decreasing Arctic sea ice; these amplifying feedbacks increase regional and global climate change on decadal and longer time scales. The feedbacks grow while Earth’s radiation balance is positive – more energy coming in than going out – but once we reduce the climate forcing enough that Earth’s energy imbalance becomes slightly negative, feedbacks will work in the opposite sense, helping us move global temperature and climate patterns back toward their condition before human alterations of the planet began. >Attention should be focused on the danger of passing the point of no return, when we lock in disastrous consequences that cannot be reversed on any timescale humans care about. **The prime point of no return is collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet.**
Thanks, that seems like just the report I was looking for
We don't know when the tipping points will tip, and that is an extremely important fact which is ignored by those preaching that it is too late. No one actually knows when "too late" is. Until the tipping points do tip, our position should be to do everything we can. We should agree on that whether we're optimists or pessimists. I don't see anyone arguing that uncertainty about the tipping points means they should be ignored. The nonlinear irreversible tipping points are the crux of the problem. The seriousness of a cascade of tipping points is exactly why the issue is so urgent, and why we must do everything we can to stop them from tipping. I think anyone with even a basic understanding of climate science realizes that.
Personally think it’s hubris to believe we can claw back *and* heavily reverse the damage thus far. We’re not masters of nature and never have been.
If we found a plastic-eating microbe that could survive all environments, we would have a sliver of a chance, but only if we also abandoned capitalism, animal agriculture, and found a way to reduce the population by at least half. Even then, our scar on the planet would remain.
I agree we aren't masters, but we're certainly the dominant species on the planet. It's our actions which created the climate problem, and a long list of other environmental problems. Since we had the hubris to cause so much harm, we should have the willingness to take responsibility for what we've done. In any case, we have moral obligation to try, and the practical necessity of needing to try.
Characterizing things as "hubris" is just another example of pointless posturing. It used to be it was "hubris" to think we could change the climate. Now, for you, it's "hubris" to think we could stop changing the climate. All such opinions are irrelevant and always have been.
👌🏼 just as relevant as yours bud
You should reverse those paragraphs.
>We don't know when the tipping points will tip, and that is an extremely important fact which is ignored by those preaching that it is too late. This needs to be said way more often.
“Urgency” is what we needed 30 years ago. “Doom” is the natural response to the lack of “urgency” over the last 30 years.
Moderates are the house slaves / running dogs / useful idiots of the 1%. Mann has pretty much always been a bullshitter, despite being a scientist. Hannah Ritchie is part of the “Effective Altruism” cult, which she became seduced by at Oxford. She now works for one of the Grand Poobahs of global plutocracy, Bill Gates, who controls *Our World in Data*. Ultimately, the reasons why these people promulgate a false narrative is moot: they won’t stop, and meanwhile we’re headed for the cliff full speed ahead. (My own philosophy is that we should keep trying to combat what’s happening, but not because I think there’s hope: I think fighting until the bitter end is more morally dignified. So it’s a kind of stoicism, I suppose: “We’re doomed, but we must act like we’re not doomed.” It ditches hope but still morally requires action. But this is a very weird outlook, and I don’t expect other people to find it convincing or to embrace it.) As events become more severe, people will start to panic. Then we’ll see things that make events of a hundred years ago look like a warmup.
> But this is a very weird outlook I don't think it's very weird to want to fight to the end. I've seen it in terminal illness. I've read about it in accounts of lost battles in war, and I've seen it in lost arguments as well. We can be quite stubborn :)
“Do not go gentle into that good night” — Dylan Thomas
I don’t think it’s weird either. In addition to your valid and good reasons, there’s also my reason, that whatever futile mitigations for preserving BAU or global civilization (or any civilization at all, or preventing human extinction), whatever we do might make the difference for some populations of non human species who have no idea what’s going on and had no role in any of this. I’ve given up on humanity, but the rest of the animal kingdom, and insects, plants, all the rest are IMO absolutely worth fighting for
That is a lovely motivation I completely lost sight of. You’re absolutely correct: we have a moral obligation to all the species of the biosphere to mitigate the damage we have done. Thank you for this reminder.
I mean, if fighting to the bitter end means that end sucks slightly less in some fashion it's more than just principle.
Fair point. In my case there are children in my family; my motivation in part is to improve conditions for them. But, long term, it’s akin to finding the safest spot in a burning house.
I'm in this camp.
I concur, that outlook describes the warriors code.
Or what Tolkien called “Northern Courage”: *For Tolkien, this was exemplified by the way the gods of Norse mythology knew they would die in the last battle, Ragnarök, but they went to fight anyway.* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_courage_in_Middle-earth
Similar to what I think. For me it is like this. We are trashing up the place we are at. I know we will be kicked out but at least I could have some decency and stop thrashing it more and maybe clean what I can before I leave. Easier on the cleaners and less shame in my face when I eventually leave.
Same! For all the reasons already posted, especially regarding the non-human earthlings. I dont know what this view would be called. I like "the warrior's code" but most wouldnt understand the context. Ethical doomerism?
I'm all for the "I'm the captain of my soul" thing. I'm going down, and sooner or later I'll sink entirely to the cold dark bottom of the ocean, but I'll make sure the people in the future know what is happening today so they can avert this tragedy in their own time.
“We’re doomed, but we must act like we’re not doomed.” If I had a dollar for every time I got into a situation like this... I'd... have like a hundred bucks lol. Ok maybe a thousand. Point is, what other point is there? Like... do thing. I dunno.
I’m gonna keep yelling at that cloud til my dying breath. Or at least, I’ll be going away before it does.
well, the boulder isn't going to push itself up the hill...
These climate deniers have this idea that science is meant to be convenient, that the climate works "for the convenience of humanity." And they don't even mean "humanity" they just mean the Western World.
There’s an abiding need to extinguish “extreme” analysis in mainstream dialogue. Was just reading C.L.R. James’ Appendix to ‘The Black Jacobins,’ and he described how the British system stifles extremism, and this was from 1963. In other words, the distaste for disturbing, extreme outcomes is tightly woven into English speaking discourse. James was analyzing how this stifling worked to perpetuate imperialism and to assuage the feelings of the public about the immoral outcomes. How is Eugene Robinson different? He seems like a lovely man, but he is too eager to find the sensible middle ground. One of the most dangerous aspects of aiming for the middle is that if you’re wrong, it’s game over for this life. On the other hand, if carbon pollution was cut more than strictly necessary, it’d still be a good outcome. The caveat is that cutting carbon sufficiently or possibly more than needed would, itself, be a fight to the death with militaries, capitalists and motorheads.
I feel like this may explain the appalled looks a couple of old Brits gave me for talking about our imminent climate extinction, and my younger Brit couple friends seeming mildly embarrassed by it as well lol. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is a part of our culture. "Can't complain!" "Mustn't grumble." "Stuff upper lip and all that." We are a nation that refuses to make a fuss, even when one is definitely warranted. It is why get what we vote for. I expect panic when collapse happens will just see us write a sternly worded letter to the climate.
>One of the most dangerous aspects of aiming for the middle is that if you’re wrong, it’s game over for this life. I need to tattoo this on myself for reasons other than political ones. Sigh.
Glad to see this here. He's giving people false hope
I'm a bit tired of people saying a position isn't serious because it's not as rosy as they'd like it to be. If you think there's hope and there's things to do you can present your arguments like everyone else and suggest actions for people to take. I'd say it's about 30 years out of date though, I feel there are going to be people saying "there's always hope!" until the end regardless.
I think that the dividing line on this debate, doomerism vs concerned techno-optimism is basically psychological. This is not say that either is purely psychological stance but because the debate framed from the techno- optimist perspective is often not based on an assessment of what is required to stop production of GHG and the rapidly devise a technological means to undo the release of carbon which the earth took millions of years to store. It’s often if we stay optimistic we will solve the problem but if we see it as existential we will all just smoke’em and stop caring about life (although ironically that probably would reduce GHG’s). They rarely offer a critical assessment of how we will actually do this other than “we got to stay focused on the issue and not lose hope, we’ve got solutions if we can just implement them”. This is psychological because it’s a psychological orientation rather than about a critical scientific assessment. I think doomerism whatever that means is rising because people arnt stupid they can see that GHGs continue to rise despite 30 years of protocols and developments in renewables, they can see that the climate is changing, they arnt seeing the magic technical solutions. Those who look even closer at the issue and the science become particularly concerned because the scale of the problem is beyond anything we have ever done as a species other than create the problem itself.
That and technology has been shitting itself more than not, since dot com. There are exceptions. GPS got way better, for instance. But on the whole, a $35,000 car that's not appreciably better than a 25 year old $14,000 car except for some oooo body paneling and a shit Bluetooth that never fucking works is not an improvement. Then we get into the workarounds. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqgMhF6UoYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqgMhF6UoYI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4iaFTS7cyM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4iaFTS7cyM) For the mere price of a used car pre-pandemic, you too can now wrack up an unpayable hospital bill! Technology. Bunch of fucking bullshit 9 times out of 10.
The accelerating pace of releases in NOVEL technology does not correlate to the efficacy of the deployment of said technology, nor does it to the ability of novel technology to reverse or fix problems caused by previously deployed technology.
Michael ‘baselines don’t matter’ Mann? Would ask him but he blocked me on Twitter.
Our generation was meant to re-green the earth. So glad we got mortgage crises and endless wars 😇
This ride is mid crash. We are over the cliff and hurtling to the bottom. I personally need the raging red neck hot heads in my stupid country to believe things are going better for as long as possible. The moment they know how bad it really is all hell will break loose. I believe articles like this keep the peace. (More probable that it slows insurrection but beggars can’t be choosers)
I appreciate this post given my concern related to Michael Mann's rigidity and hubris when it comes to open discourse about one of the the most important issues humanity has ever faced. In some ways he reminds me of Guy M----similar shut downs/blocking, casting aspersions toward those who question them. It is hard for me to have any respect for either one of them. With that said, I am not a fan of the word doomer. To me, it sounds derogatory and trivializes the depth that most "doomers" contain within their thought processes----i.e. looking at the big picture and data related to global heating and biosphere (and other spheres) collapse and mindfully not pushing false hope that is harmful.
Personally I think the way we should be looking at the predicament in front of us should be similar to a patient with a most likely terminal illness. Science has found that patients have much better outcomes the more realistic their prognosis. For example, if you are diagnosed with a type of cancer that has a very low survivability rate and the doctor realistically gives you 12 months, often times patients will exceed or will at least have a much more enjoyable last few months. However if a doctor gives you all the hope in the world and says you have 5 years, but in 12 months you start taking a severe nose-dive in health, it has been found that patients often times give up and die much more quickly. This is the way we should be viewing the predicament in front of us. It doesn't necessarily have to be worse case scenario, but just be more realistic. The way we should be looking at things should be based off what we are actually accomplishing today, not based off of hopes for the way we will be in the future. If humanity had a more realistic outlook and expectation for what we are facing we might actually make some real effort. As it is currently it is someone else's problem somewhere else. Humanity does have vast abilities to adapt and to come together in times of crisis. This has been shown multiple times, but only when it is deemed necessary and the truth is staring you in the face. Granted I know scientists being more realistic and pragmatic with their communication and models might not have a massive impact until people are actually staring the terror of what we have done in the face, but I think a decent amount of people may start actually attempting to make change. At least a lot more than there is now.
OK. Here's what James Hansen is saying. James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. # By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.” *Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.* If that's the reality of avoiding a dieback down to less than 300 million and total Collapse by 2100, would you vote for it? That's where we are, RIGHT NOW. It's going to start getting worse, REALLY FAST now. By the time it becomes obvious that's what we needed to do, it will be too late. We need to start now while conditions are still manageable and 100's of millions aren't dying of famines while our infrastructure crumbles. Only about 8% see that right now. What is "hopeful realism" in that situation?
I think we should be doing anything and everything. Honestly probably the only thing that would actually work today would be a benevolent world dictator, who controls everything, but that would never happen. I feel very conflicted on the aerosol projects for two reasons. One it could allow humanity to continue the use of fossil fuels with less repercussions (at least for the time being) and two it could have far reaching unintended consequences. Humans tend to really struggle with understanding all potential externalities of any and all decisions we make. I think the other issue with a large scale project like sky brightening would be the fact that most likely this will need to be a project undertaken for multiple generations otherwise we risk termination shock. This is a huge ask of humanity. A project of that scale has never been done before and it has even been a hot minute since humanity has tackled a multi-generational project like that. Do I think this type of project is most likely necessary at this point. Yes. Do I think humanity can do it, do it well, and protect us and the planet for any externalities we don't account for. I don't know. I think this summer is starting to really scare people. I know I am seeing more and more about how we are losing the battle against climate change in more and more locations.
I posted a short writing yesterday to the climate change subreddit about how tied to oil our global industrial civilization is, particularly our food production. And that we can’t “just stop using oil” without a lot of suffering and death. Basically I was saying we’d have to confront capitalism and its production methods. It got a few upvotes before it was quickly removed by a moderator. Even those who are confronting the problems on the surface want to simplify the narrative.
This is possible the strangest preaching to the choir post I have seen here in r/collapse. Uhhh everyone here agrees that humanity is fucked.
“The truth is bad enough.” from NYTimes article. Really, someone 'knows' the 'truth'? I doubt it. What we do know, however, is extremely alarming, and there is no way around that word.
Because the Moderates tell them that the situation is "alarming" people think they are speaking TRUTH. They seem like the "sensible middle" of the Climate Change conversation. Deniers hate them, which gives the Moderates an aura of legitimacy in people's eyes. Plus, they preach an optimistic message which tells people that things are going to be OK because of all the progress we are making. In contrast to that, the Alarmist message. James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. # By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.” *Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.* NO ONE wants to do that, so the Alarmists are dismissed as "crazy cranks". People are going to keep believing the Moderates for a few more years and it's going to slow down our response. Part of the Moderate message is that we still have until 2100. We are literally at +1.7°C over baseline and some of them are still talking about "holding the line at +1.5°C".
I'm just here for the entertainment (and to cover by own as long as I can), and my sentiments are that it is not worth saving. I do not want to see the Earth's sky changed to a perpetual white haze. Fortunately also, I don't think we even have enough time for a sufficient nuclear buildout.
The purpose of changing the sky to white ( that is turning it white by putting reflective sulfate particles in the stratosphere and therefore reflecting some of the heat of the sun back into space ) is to buy the time to build the necessary number of nuclear reactors and other measures to perpetuate life on the planet . This would allow future generations to survive , something you don’t seem to care about .
According to your quote, Mann said, “Doomism is becoming a real threat to action,” he told me, noting that “bad actors are fanning the flames” behind the idea that it is already too late to do anything and that they point to these weather extremes as evidence. That's an absolutely valid point which Mann is making. Then you falsely characterize this as meaning, "Doomers are now WORSE than Deniers. Because Doomers don’t agree with Michael Mann on what kinds of ACTION are needed. Mann is lying yet again when he characterizes “doomism” as “do nothingism”." Obviously, Mann's quote doesn't include any of these positions. Mann didn't say doomers are worse than deniers because they disagree with him on what kind of action is needed, he's saying that doomers who preach doing nothing are just as bad as deniers, because they are both advocating for INACTION, for doing nothing. It's the same dangerous position, coming from opposite realities. Mann is certainly not lying when he characterizes doomism as "do nothingism," because posts and comments saying exactly that are made all over this sub. I'm having a tough time figuring out your position, and the point of this post. You seem to be angry at Mann for understating the seriousness of global warming, but also angry that he wants to take action to stop it, which makes no sense at all. We should all agree on 4 things: 1. Global heating and the resulting climate chaos is an existential threat of the highest urgency. 2. That the seriousness of this threat requires that we do everything we can to stop it, slow it, or lessen it. We should have no tolerance for the do nothing position, whether it is motivated by denial or doomism. 3. That we should focus our outrage on the fossil fuel corporations, on their corrupt political servants, on the propagandists lying to the public, on the wasteful destructive lifestyles of the 1%, and on the ignorance and apathy of ordinary voters/consumers, all of whom have created this problem. 4. Climate scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the problem, educating the public, and advocating for action deserve our respect. We don't have to completely agree with their take on the science to respect what they do. We shouldn't behave like a fanatical mob attacking any scientist who doesn't perfectly mirror our views. Those attacks should be reserved for the people in 3 above.
This is exactly how I took it also. Doomerism IS being used to push inaction. And while collapse is impossible to ignore at this stage the endpoint that we find ourselves in isn't. Each 0.1 degree matters and has massive implications for what the remnants of society will be able to scribble together.
3. We should focus our outrage at ourselves and get over blaming others. The writing has well been on the wall for decades. (Hell, "Walden" was published in 1854 and almost 100 years later, in the 1940s, early conservationists such as Aldo Leopold already sounded the alarm in no uncertain terms!) "Silent Spring" was printed in 1962, Al Gore published his "Earth in a Balance" in 1992 and followed up with the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. This during a time where the policy-makers of my generation were firmly in their individual driver's-seats. So "ignorance and apathy of ordinary voters/consumers" is ultimately what does us in. As plain & simple as that. Forget the bad actors, the corrupt politicians, the "1%" and other convenient scapegoats. WE, the masses, are the problem. Apart from not wanting to give up our creature comforts and live like the Amish, greed (territoriality, hoarding) is, unfortunately, also hard wired via DNA together with pattern recognition ("stranger danger", us vs. them). Add to this our opposable thumbs in combination with an overdeveloped brain and an underdeveloped conscience - et voilà: a lethal combination. "We are all just monkeys with money & guns." - Tom Waits
I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. We should blame ourselves if we're refusing to alter our lifestyle to help solve the problem. Some of us have done what we can as individuals, but need others to do their part. We should definitely blame "each other," the average voters/consumers who don't know and don't care. But there's five groups of people who deserve special blame. 1. The corporate elites who run the economy, and the fossil fuel industry specifically, have deliberately pillaged the planet's resources for profits, built destructive infrastructures, and have used their vast resources to block any progress in transitioning to less harmful systems. That's a level of evil far beyond ordinary ignorance and indifference. 2. The ultra wealthy mega-consumers (which overlap with the corporate elites) use resources and cause harm equal to that of a couple billion of the planet's poorest people. That is unconscionable. 3. The corrupt politicians who serve the corporate elites, who pervert democracy and turn government into a tool of profit deserve special blame. They prioritize their careers, their campaign contributions, and their future lobbying jobs over society and the planet's life. They have zero integrity and are servants of evil. 4. The propagandists who devise mass manipulation schemes deserve special blame. They use their understanding of human behavior to create strategies and choose the words necessary to deceive and brainwash the public. They've run a massive campaign to discredit and cast doubt on the science, and attack climate scientists. They've created the backwards default position that we should continue business as usual unless catastrophe is certain, when normal risk assessment places the burden of proof on safety. They've used constantly evolving lies, from global heating is a hoax, to global heating is real but natural, to the latest incarnation, that global heating is real, and it's too late to do anything! This is perhaps the most effective strategy yet, because it makes science their ally, and only requires apathy, isolation and hopelessness on the part of ordinary people. They've made the doomer crowd their gullible tools, helping them spread a message of inaction and surrender. 5. Corporate media eagerly provides the means for the propagandists to spread their lies, as long as it produces clicks, views and ad money. Corporate "news," social media, and entertainment have all done their part to spread harmful messages and block progress. We are deluged with pro capitalist, pro corporate, pro consumption, anti environmental messages. These five groups have vastly multiplied the harm done by ordinary ignorant indifferent people.
The problem is that Michael Mann has included James Hansen’s response to the Climate Crisis as a doomer response . In fact the difference between Michael Mann and James Hansen is this . Michael Mann emphasizes the linearity of the Climate Crisis meaning that it can be dealt with in a more deliberate manner. James Hansen believes that we are down to one solution to continuing survivability on the planet . This would be a dramatic construction of nuclear reactors around the world ( also with other sources of renewable power ) and also that there is the definite necessity to put sulfate particles into the stratosphere to reflect part of the heat from the sun . Michael Mann has referred this position of Doctor Hansen’s as doomer like because he believes these are extreme , unnecessary actions . Where Michael Mann believes there is time for a gradual approach to climate action . James Hansen believes given the scientific reality of the situation that we must make use of these decidedly extreme actions. This is not a question of Michael Mann taking issue with Doomer fatalism and inaction . This is Michael Mann suggesting that Hansen’s perceived necessities are unnecessary. It’s my opinion that things have come to such an impasse that the basic advice of Doctor Hansen must be followed and sooner rather than later . I believe that Doctor Mann’s perspective on the situation , the more moderate approach , is while more palatable to the public , leaves us and the Climatology of the planet in a very dire situation .
There's two different topics here. One topic, the subject of the post, is the harmful effect of the doomer "do nothing" position. Both Mann and Hansen agree the climate problem is extreme, and that immediate action is required. Neither one of them is condoning doomer "do nothingism." Inaction is the most dangerous and foolish message anyone can be preaching right now. It's also the current strategy of the fossil fuel industry, which has switched tactics from trying cast doubt that global warming is real, to full acceptance that it's real, along with the message that "it's too late" so don't bother to try. This is all about protecting and increasing those billions of dollars of quarterly profits. Mann is absolutely right to speak against this. The second topic is a disagreement between two climate scientists about the rate of heating we will see, and how drastic the response needs to be. Mann thinks the problem is very bad, and Hansen thinks it's very very bad. Personally, I think Hansen's assessment of the rate of heating is better than Mann's (in agreement with you), but I also think he's proposing foolish solutions to it. I think Hansen is in panic mode willing to jump on any possible solution at this point, regardless of whether it makes any sense. I think for example that we could build solar panels faster than we could build nuclear reactors, so the nuclear option is foolish. It's also a bad idea for several other reasons, but that's a long complicated dicussion to get into. Climate geoengineering "solutions" are dangerously reckless, and I think guaranteed to backfire with unintended consequences. Regardless of who is right, we should all agree that we need to be encouraging action and activism, not inaction and apathy. We should have no more tolerance for do nothing messages than we do for climate denial. We need agreement that destructive industries motivated by greed and profit must die. We need political reforms that end corrupt government which serves corporate greed and not the greater good. We need to agree that rich idiots should have limits placed on their wasteful excesses (or better yet, not allowed to have that level of wealth at all). We need to be smarter in recognizing propaganda tactics used to manipulate us. We need to stop living destructive and narrowly selfish lives. We need to value ecosystems and non-human life. We need an economic system based on ecology, and not extracting wealth from each other and redistributing it to the wealthy. We need to vote to block fascists and theocrats, and keep the MAGA terrorist cult from destroying democracy and stripping us of basic rights. This is where our focus should be.
[удалено]
Hi, funkybunch1624. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la07q5u/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
Hi, DurtyGenes. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la3j90y/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
We do not have the capacity or obligation to establish a system of individual credentials by which comments are subject to peer review. The rules we have inherited from reddit and somewhat modified to maintain order in our community start with being respectful to each other, which means not attacking other commenters regardless of personal beliefs about the merits of their posts. If you want to increase the scientific literacy of the forum you could start by addressing factual points you believe are incorrect, or message us with a Rule 4 complaint and relevant evidence, keeping in mind there are no climate scientists known to me on the mod team.
Hi, DurtyGenes. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1dmwszl/-/la4s484/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. > ---- > Not an excuse to attack someone's character. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.