Growing Public Apathy on Climate Change Topic Worries Scientists

[Nimcha]

I'd say "hitting the reset" button would be good, let the next generation of poor (possibly sentient) bastards roll the dice like we did. Worked with the dinosaurs, maybe the next species at the top of the food chain will do it better than we did.

You'd have to define 'better' first

 

[Drejer43]

Im of the opinion that we need a mass extinction event anyway.

Well then you'll be happy to know we're living one.

I meant that humans needed a mass extinction event.

To what end? And why?

People are saying the oddest things in this thread.

some kids just wanna be edgy

 

[sinterklaas]

People have other, more immediate worries on their mind rather than long term changes (no matter how big those changes might be). I guess that's how humans work. Plus we have the media who report everything wrong, from greatly exaggerating the effects of global warming by taking the worst case scenario predictions and presenting them as the scientific consensus, to flat out denying that the Earth is warming.

And people generally aren't very smart. "Oh hey it's been a really cold winter that means global warming isn't real!"

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Thing is a lot of countries are trying to cut pollutions that cause climate change. But when you have the biggest polluters like USA and China continue as usual. It becomes pointless.

Another thing that makes me not care is when scientists that right papers saying climate change isnt as serious as people say. An they get given death threats, or there papers are not printed due to a pro climate change agenda. Science shouldnt have an agenda, just cold facts and figures.

 

[DaWaffledude]

But when the time comes, people are going to be wondering why nobody bothered to listen or do anything about it when we had the early warnings years ago.

IT'S JUST LIKE THE REAPERS

(Sorry, I've been on a Mass Effect Kick lately)

But in all seriousness, I don't understand the "I don't care because it's not going to effect me" Argument.

"Ah yes, "Global Warming". The rapid rise in worldwide temperature allegedly to have serious consequences within the next decade or two. We have dismissed that claim".

OT: I think it's a combination of factors. The recession has everyone concerned about their immediate future, people are still debating whether it exists (annoyingly), and yes. People got bored of it. Humans are annoying that way.

 

[Ishigami]

As European citizen I really don?t care.
Any effort to limit mankind?s influence on the climate is utterly pointless if the major polluter don?t give a fuck. And the USA and China don?t give a fuck.
So in order to compete with these nutjobs on the global market I have to not give a fuck as well?

 

[synobal]

Fox news screaming "its not real its a hoax by the Liberals!" isn't exactly helping either. Its okay though I'm not having kids and reducing my carbon footprint as best I can. So that is the best I can do.

>Wants to help the planet
>Decides to not have kids
>Instead let's the people who don't believe in climate change have kids

So how does it feel shooting yourself in the foot?

Because ones kids always represent you perfectly as opposed to having their own ideas. My decision not to have "kids" is not as simple as resource consumption though. The comment was mostly refering to how the "quiver fulls" operate.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I think the problem is that everyone in the western world could diligently recycle, drive hybrid cars and power their countries with renewable energies, but at the end of the day it makes no difference when developing countries like China don't give a shit and carry on polluting.

At this point I believe the only solution is something drastic like mirrors in space or seeding the ocean with iron.

The US and the EU are, with China, the biggest CO2 emitters in the world though. If we were serious about climate change, it would make a difference in and of itself. True, many other countries might not follow our positive example, but it would make a difference. If we do nothing, however, how could we ever expect that those other countries, which are neither as wealthy nor really responsible as we are, do something?

Also, China will probably give a shit sooner or later and cut down on emissions of any kind. Smog in Chinese cities is already often unbearable, and there's only so much that people are willing to put up with.

But of course it would be much better if everyone was onboard. Not that I'm very optimistic seeing that happening anytime soon. There doesn't seem to be that much political pressure in the EU right now, and in the US too many people don't even believe in climate change being a thing at all (but of course everyone is free to make a fool out of himself by rather believing in the least plausible conspiracy theory ever dreamed up by mankind instead).

 

[NSGrendel]

Compare how much oil you save by recycling a plastic carrier bag with how much oil you use in a day's operation of a tank.

Now explain to me again how we're going to stop global warming?

If you are poor, you have no power. If you don't consume and create, you have no wealth.

Anyone smart enough to work out the reasons for the status quo already has, anyone who isn't won't understand the explanation.

Ultimately, entropy makes everything worthless except our own personal experiences, since nothing is permanent or externally meaningful, unless you have some religious underpinning to your thoughts. In which case, god will fix everything anyway.

/facepalm

 

[Nadia Castle]

The whole climate change movement stopped being a sensible rallying call and descended into a semi religion a long time ago. All those maps showing a world that's 90% underwater and scaremonger calls for people to repent for their polluting sins have turned the movement into a joke.

Hopefully people are instead waking up to the fact that 'Holy S**t we don't have any energy to fall back on' is a bit more of a worry than 'The temperature will change in ways we can't predict over a long period of time'. Climate change will cause major trouble in places like Africa and the Middle East, but for the first world it just means spending more on flood defenses and changing our diet to more sturdy crops. The fact Europe depends on Putins Russia for power scares me a lot more.

And hey, if climate change really does happen the way the loons say it will then London, Liverpool and Hull will all vanish beneath the waves. And I'd call that a 100% success for the future of Britain!!

 

[TallanKhan]

The problem with the climate change debate is that generally you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, there is such a deep divide between people who believe in man made climate change and those who don't that to anyone in the middle it's like observing two religious cults blindly chanting their mantra in an attempt to drown out the other, and both come over as rather extremist.

You have one group which denies the most remote possibility that climate change could occur as a result of human behaviour, even on a conceptual level and another that attributes every freak weather event, every warm day in February, as a sign of the impending apocalypse. Frankly, people are sick of hearing about it because most sensible people can see how stupid both positions are.

Now I myself am a believer in man made climate change but I base that on my own assessment of the evidence available. There has been a spike in global temperatures that have mirrored a spike in CO2 emissions and even on a logical level, we are pumping millions of tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere, altering it's composition, it would be odd if it didn't have an impact to one degree or another.

However, while I do believe human activity is having an impact on the Earth's climate, I am not confident that climate change as we are experiencing it is the result solely of said activity. We have to remember that we have been recording weather and climate conditions in sufficient detail to be valid scientific evidence for a few decades now and while we can obtain additional evidence (such as from polar ice) there is still a huge amount we just don't know. In addition there are longer term climate trends which we do not fully understand which complicates the process of drawing a baseline from which to extrapolate the degree to which the actual temperature is an aberration from the expected level.

 

[Therumancer]

The problem with the climate change debate is that generally you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, there is such a deep divide between people who believe in man made climate change and those who don't that to anyone in the middle it's like observing two religious cults blindly chanting their mantra in an attempt to drown out the other, and both come over as rather extremist.

You have one group which denies the most remote possibility that climate change could occur as a result of human behaviour, even on a conceptual level and another that attributes every freak weather event, every warm day in February, as a sign of the impending apocalypse. Frankly, people are sick of hearing about it because most sensible people can see how stupid both positions are.

Now I myself am a believer in man made climate change but I base that on my own assessment of the evidence available. There has been a spike in global temperatures that have mirrored a spike in CO2 emissions and even on a logical level, we are pumping millions of tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere, altering it's composition, it would be odd if it didn't have an impact to one degree or another.

However, while I do believe human activity is having an impact on the Earth's climate, I am not confident that climate change as we are experiencing it is the result solely of said activity. We have to remember that we have been recording weather and climate conditions in sufficient detail to be valid scientific evidence for a few decades now and while we can obtain additional evidence (such as from polar ice) there is still a huge amount we just don't know. In addition there are longer term climate trends which we do not fully understand which complicates the process of drawing a baseline from which to extrapolate the degree to which the actual temperature is an aberration from the expected level.

Well, the counter point is that we don't have any real idea what the natural climate trend for earth is when looking at the passage of millions of years. We know for example that the climate of earth has been radically different several times in it's billions of years of history, ranging to the steaming jungles of the dinosaurs, to the ice age that wiped them out. People assume there were other factors and try and find evidence of a meteor collision that could have cause an ice age, with mixed results (none are universally accepted, and it remains a theory). One point that's been made is that the earth doesn't follow as predictable a rotation about the sun as we once thought, rather it spirals in closer and then further as part of it's orbit, albeit very slowly, with many, many, years in between. It's theorized by some that the climate change we're seeing is natural, and that if humanity remains around due to our technology we'll see
the world go through cycles of both incredible heat, and massive ice ages. Another similar point being made that's connected to this is that earth is actually overdo for an ice age, and that following the patterns we should be getting colder, not hotter, the CO2 gasses and things that we've been using are actually responsible for the survival of humanity at this point because we've been able to trap the heat down here on earth and prevent massive climate change in the other direction. According to this theory while we might stand to lessen things up a bit for comfort reasons, actually cutting our CO2 emissions and doing the things that guys like Al Gore wants would probably doom humanity
but radically dropping the global temperature and perhaps bringing about another ice age, as it's debatable whether
we could ever recreate the same events once all the heat we're trapping is gone. We don't yet have the technology to be able to survive a full on ice age, or at least not dispersed widely enough for human civilization to continue as it is.

My basic attitude is that there are a lot of theories when you get down to it, the whole "Global Warming" thing is largely a political construct as it exists now. *IF* it actually exists, and if humans are actually doing it, there is then the question as to whether we really want to radically change it. There are climate scientists that point to the overdue ice ages and say "it's happened already, and greenhouse gasses have saved us" for example, and I'm not quite ready to dismiss those kinds of points. As I mentioned in my last post Larry Niven's "Fallen Angels" touched on a lot of the less politicized environmental issues related to climate change. While I won't take it as gospel it did convince me that it's something we don't want to jump on without a lot more information than we currently possess. What's more the fact that it's political should make people wary even if they agree with the overall intent, global warming as an issue largely exists to attack industries that the left wing isn't allied with, for the benefit of ones that it is.

 

[Hap2]

A not-insignificant number of media sources enjoy spreading misinformation about climate change, in part because it strikes a chord with readers and watchers who don't understand the issue, and in part because that narrative favours the political groups the media sources support. That has a big part in it; people absorb what they read repetitively, and lying newspapers have a wider net than scientists.

Scientists need a better outlet than the ones they have.

The fact that more people disbelieve in climate change than disbelieve in the moon landing is stunning, to me, because the former being a hoax would require a far grander conspiracy. The largest conspiracy the world has ever known, spanning every country and reputable scientific institution in existence.

Add in the fact that most media outlets have far less people who are forced to take on far more responsibilities, and you get journalists putting out sub-par articles with little context and thought behind them. The expectation is to have it out NOW these days, mainly because of the internet and audience expectations. And then there's the issue of clickbait and ratings...

---

Given the evidence, the current enviromental trends and the immense amount of scientists backing it - global warming is indeed a problem, and will create further problems in the near future: economic, political, agricultural and in general, our survival.

I don't buy the line that it's too big a problem or that we can't do nothing about it. I cannot control the world, and I am not responsible if the rest of it decides to go to hell. But I am responsible for whatever will and influence I control, no matter how seemingly insignificant. I will do what I can, regardless of what others do, but if the problem is to be solved, it's up to others to do the same and stop making excuses.

 

[Veylon]

I'm kinda old, and I remember when the population explosion would have people falling off into the ocean due to over-crowding by now, and all the oil was supposed to be gone, and the interest rate was like 20% (it's like 1% now)and remember aids was going to have killed us all by now? And acid rain was killing our lakes and dissolving our buildings, and there was probably a lot of other media-darlings over the last 40 years that I forget just now, all supposed to bring civilization to an end. Yes, global warming is real and a huge threat to civilization, but the media makes a living out of making people freak out. So, stay calm, and just ignore those reporters. And try not to produce CO2.

Well, stuff got done due to people getting upset. Catalytic converters got put into cars. Smokestacks got equipped with various scrubbers. Previously inaccessible oil was accessed via offshore oil rigs. Environmental regulations dictating what couldn't be chucked into the environment were passed. Efficiency was increased, meaning that less energy is being used than was predicted. A whole host of social and pharmaceutical pressures have been brought to bear on AIDS, giving it's victims effective treatments. And overpopulation only really sounds convincing if you live in/near a major city and mentally project those circumstances to everywhere (besides which, fertility is in free fall anyway).

I'm personally in favor of some sort of massive series of hydroponics/aeroponics projects so that we can grow our food indoors and not have to care if the climate changes on us. We already know how to transport water, electricity, and raw materials long distances. Let's finish the job so we can stop wringing our hands every time there's a drought or a frost or whatever.

 

[Jamieson 90]

In my opinion, environmentalists (and I count myself as one of them) need to stop the alarmist attitude and bring a positive message, otherwise nothing is ever going to change before it's too late.

Instead of telling people that they're bad bad naughty kids who use too much energy and produce too much waste, we should come up with positive solutions that people WANT to adapt because they're good for them.

For example: supermarkets here stopped giving out thin plastic bags altogether, instead they gave everyone a sturdy, reusable and environmentally friendly bag. No one complained about missing their little thin plastic bags that were frequently thrown into nature that way.

Similarly, better insulation for housing, renovating old residences with durable techniques and investing into geothermal energy / solar panels on an individual basis can be very positive if it's supported.
The same with locally grown food and support for smaller (non-monoculture) agriculture businesses.

The message should be that we can stop this thing if we work together, it shouldn't be that the situation is hopeless. People tire of that, you see the same thing with media messages about wars worldwide (especially Syria currently).

I think it could help, but whenever I think about the environment and what I personally can do I also think about America, India and China and the sort of damage they're doing. In reality whatever I do won't even amount to 0.000000000001% in the grand scheme of things, and because everyone's defeatist etc I just feel like saying "What's the point......"

 

[Princessbabe]

Except the epa does list america below china when counting CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Industrial Processes.

In fact our output in 2012 was about half that of china. On top of that when it comes to per capita out put, we're less than Australia.

Urgh. Don't remind me about the Australian one. We tried to institute a price on Carbon, and one of the right's big arguments against it was "Why should we start doing things about Climate Change when no one else in the world is?"

Because, naturally, we're already doing less than the world. And now our new PM has systematically scrapped every scientific body we had working on the problem.

Ah well. Apologies from Australia on that. You're going to have to put up with us getting worse while the country is run by climate skeptics.

Not to mention that the arguments here about China's emissions? Guess who is selling them the fuel? Because we don't do things half wrong, we're also dredging the great barrier reef, the only living organism visible from space and one of the biggest draws we have in terms of tourism (if economic arguments float your boat). We are dredging that reef so we can build the biggest coal export port in Australia to sell greater volumes of our coal.

Mining company vehicles are also exempt from Australia's fuel excise and the government also gives them rebates and tax breaks. The Australian coal industry is heavily subsidized by a government who will not provide any such concessions or support to our potential renewable industry despite evidence that if they were equally subsidized or both left to their own devices that the renewable industry could compete very well. We are also de-funding, dismantling or just ignoring every scientific body of climatologists. We don't even have a Minister for Science anymore.

In defending his moves to de-list huge swathes of protected pristine forest in national parks for logging, our Prime Minister has actually stated that God created the earth for us to use so why shouldn't we? You've probably heard about him even if you're not Australian, as he's been popping up in international press like the Washington Post and Al Jazeera to name two.

We're sorry guys. We tried but his only real competition is a joke full of cowardice and compromise and he sailed to power on Australia's apparent weaknesses of self-interest, racism and ignorance.

This is my answer to the original topic and the multiple posts here about personal responsibility. Yes we should be making real changes as a civilisation, but our personal efforts pale in comparison the effects the political and industrial forces are having. It is no wonder people are growing apathetic.