What would the world look like if we had won the fight?
I've been hearing about this fight for my entire life. People are extremely passionate and self-righteous about it and have science to back up everything they believe, so why was there never a single unified plan with a single unified movement behind it?
Because the world is made of independent countries acting in their own best interest or that of their leaders. There will never be a world government until all countries roughly align on a common set of values and political framework and then actually practice those. Most countries don’t share values and ideals.
We live in a world driven by capitalism, not by logic. If global environmental collapse is more profitable for those making the decisions in the medium term then that's what we're going to get, their descendants be damned.
It's unfortunate we didn't get more facts from the interviewee on how exactly it's too late. The interview felt more like a complaint about politics and less about the dire situation of humanity.
Yes, this was about his thoughts on the matter, not a summary or analysis of the predicament we're in. It was nice to hear honest commentary on this topic from an esteemed science communicator.
For anyone who wants more specific information about the dire situation of humanity, that's very easy to find. He mentioned Johan Rockström so you can check out his work. Or Eliot Jacobson. Or James Hansen. Or the reports that the IPCC publishes. And on Substack, Richard Crim puts out The Crisis Report regularly. It's full of detailed analysis with references to published papers.
I love the natural world, and think what we've done to it is terrible, but the climate change "movement" and messaging is so bad and misguided that it is counterproductive. The world will not become unlivable on a timescale that any living person cares about (as revealed by expressed preference). People live in Phoenix in the summer by choice!
There are large swaths of the world that are unlivable today without significant cooling. When summers with over 45 Celsius (fifties in some parts) are becoming more and more common poor people without access to air-conditioning are suffering. These areas are becoming larger and larger.
Just because us in the western temperate climates are fine, does not mean that the effects of climate change will not be felt somewhere in the world today or in the next decade.
I know you are wrong. Farmers in South America have been driven from their land because it has become too hot. If all you care about is North America, you are also a putz.
Climate disasters are getting worse every year. I think you're completely misguided--things are going to get very bad in our lifetimes, and anyone saying otherwise is profiting off that misdirection.
We’re at a terrible crossroads. If climate scientists are right, we’re headed for unavoidable disruption. Some now say it’s already too late — all we can do is mitigate and adapt. Start local. Know your neighbors. Build resilience.
But if they’re wrong, that’s also bad news. It means our scientific institutions failed us, and the political trust placed in “studies” will collapse. The next time someone says “science says…”, society may not listen.
Either way, it’s a precarious place to be.
Until then, enjoy the summer — it might be the coolest one we have left.
There is a third option that it's real but not as bad as people make out. Like in my case the fallout is more that I'm thinking of installing aircon rather than general doom.
> The next time someone says “science says…”, society may not listen.
We're already there. Turns out it has nothing to do with science at all, but rather propaganda and political messaging. If you just tell people science is wrong and bad then they internalize that, regardless of the state of science.
This confirms what many of us know to be true - what people believe has only a very loose tie to reality. Populist messaging is the future.
15 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 36.6 ms ] threadI've been hearing about this fight for my entire life. People are extremely passionate and self-righteous about it and have science to back up everything they believe, so why was there never a single unified plan with a single unified movement behind it?
For anyone who wants more specific information about the dire situation of humanity, that's very easy to find. He mentioned Johan Rockström so you can check out his work. Or Eliot Jacobson. Or James Hansen. Or the reports that the IPCC publishes. And on Substack, Richard Crim puts out The Crisis Report regularly. It's full of detailed analysis with references to published papers.
There are large swaths of the world that are unlivable today without significant cooling. When summers with over 45 Celsius (fifties in some parts) are becoming more and more common poor people without access to air-conditioning are suffering. These areas are becoming larger and larger.
Just because us in the western temperate climates are fine, does not mean that the effects of climate change will not be felt somewhere in the world today or in the next decade.
But if they’re wrong, that’s also bad news. It means our scientific institutions failed us, and the political trust placed in “studies” will collapse. The next time someone says “science says…”, society may not listen.
Either way, it’s a precarious place to be. Until then, enjoy the summer — it might be the coolest one we have left.
We're already there. Turns out it has nothing to do with science at all, but rather propaganda and political messaging. If you just tell people science is wrong and bad then they internalize that, regardless of the state of science.
This confirms what many of us know to be true - what people believe has only a very loose tie to reality. Populist messaging is the future.
This includes the fact that whatever we do now the impact of what's already done will be felt for thousands of years.