
My own brain’s refusal to integrate the seriousness of climate change - sideshowb
https://medium.com/@samwisehawkins/why-im-a-climate-change-denier-5d9ecae0cb7
======
taberiand
Every person aware of the extent of the coming (and current) climate crisis is
a denier in this way I think.

Burying the knowledge at the back of my mind and holding it in the abstract is
just about the only way to keep from dissolving into a puddle of pure anxiety
and despair for the future and the children alive today who never even had a
chance.

I'm not convinced the people with actual power to reverse what's happening
will band together in time, and I'm not convinced that technology will be
invented to significantly manage the run-away effects. Too many people are
still bargaining to keep their current comforts and business as usual to
accept the monumental change in our way of life needed to truly have a chance
at solving this crisis.

But, there's always a glimmer of hope. There has to be, or I'd go insane.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
I'm very worried too. I have kids. In the next ten or fifteen years I'll
probably have grandkids. I'm building up food storage, anticipating periods of
high food insecurity. I've done a lot of thinking about what I really need to
live a good life, and more specifically what I don't, anticipating that there
may well come a time in my lifetime where a lot of the things I now think of
as necessities are simply not available.

But: there's a saying that engineers tend to over-estimate what can be
accomplished in the short term, and under-estimate what can be accomplished in
the long term. So I have hope. Renewable energy is getting cheaper than fossil
fuels. Electric cars are on the market already, and they're getting better.
Economic forces, once tipping points are reached, can cause change to happen
very, very quickly. I can imagine a future where nearly all cars on the road
are electric within ten to twenty years, and where nearly all electrical
generation is renewable/nuclear, and where this happens not primarily due to
government action but simply market forces and consumer sentiment.

And in the meantime, there are some ugly but eminently doable geoengineering
solutions that will keep most of us alive.

I can imagine it. So I have hope.

------
swframe2
Reminds me of the Smoke Filled Room study.
[https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools/lp/Bo/psyched/16/Smoke-...](https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools/lp/Bo/psyched/16/Smoke-
Filled-Room)

Basically, a person won't panic if other people aren't panicking.

We are frogs in a slowly warming pot and the people who make money selling the
fuel have convinced us that everything will be just fine.

~~~
unimpressive
So what you're saying is, visibly panicking is a public good?

------
tlb
Actually thoughtful and worth reading.

The problem with climate change warnings is that they depend on a prediction
about the long-term (30+ years) future. And even people who understand the
analysis find it hard to believe, deep down, any predictions about the world
that far from now. From Malthus to Huxley and Philip K. Dick, to
Millenarianism, almost all dramatic long term predictions turned out wrong.

~~~
mikeash
Some long term predictions are extremely accurate. For example, there will be
a total solar eclipse visible from Madagascar and parts of Africa on September
4, 2100. That’s pretty certain.

Climate science isn’t anywhere near that level of reliability, of course. But
it’s a hell of a lot better than novelists handwaving about the future.

~~~
tlb
When predictions of what was then called the greenhouse effect first came to
the public consciousness in the 1970s, they were pretty handwavy. So most
people over 60 today would have dismissed those early predictions as yet
another science fiction doomsday scenario when they first heard about it. That
wasn't an unreasonable conclusion based on how reliable the science was in the
70s. They should, of course, update their beliefs based on 2018 science, but a
lot of people stop doing that as they get older.

------
xupybd
>If that happens, there seems very little chance that society could survive

This statement here, while it seems correct I don't think is backed up by the
article. Does anyone know of any good work examining the impact climate change
will have on human society? I know there are going to be some serious problems
but would like see an expert break it down.

~~~
oscully
I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but "6 Degrees: Our Future on a
Hotter Planet" by Mark Lynas[1] is his attempt to summarize what the climate-
change research says will happen. It's organized into sections corresponding
to degrees centigrade of warming. It's from 2007 though, and there's a lot
that's changed since then.

There's also [2], a website which attempts to do the same as "6 Degrees" in an
abbreviated format.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_H...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_Hotter_Planet)

[2]
[http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm](http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm)

~~~
xupybd
Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for.

------
ydnaclementine
This makes me think of an older HN post (Unpopular Opinions in SF(?)), where
the author said something like: “The people who think about the effects of
climate change the most, more often than not, choose to live in places that
would be first underwater (SF, NYC, etc).”

The point was about humans being bad at considering long term future changes,
which affects everyone.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The estimated cost for a seawall to protect NYC from flooding is in the tens
of billions. NYC isn't going to get flooded.

Bangladesh OTOH...

------
carapace
Let's get crackin'!

Get involved in your own food and fuel production. Small-scale alcohol fuel
production integrated with a Permaculture (the word is a portmanteau:
PERMAnent agriCULTURE, it's a school of applied ecology) farm can provide
ecologically harmonious (carbon-neutral) fuel.
[http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277](http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277)

On a larger scale, check out CO2 sequestration through accelerated weathering
of olivine: "Olivine can reverse climate change and ocean acidification"
[https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-
change...](https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-
ocean-acidificaiton/)

Test project is in progress, I think.

------
makerofspoons
I wish I could compartmentalize it or cope better, but my health has notably
worsened since the latest IPCC report was released. I've lost sleep, been
anxious, and no amount of work I've done to reduce my own carbon footprint has
made me feel any better. It was like a switch was flipped after which I was no
longer to engage in the minimization or projection discussed in the article
and have just fallen into a pattern of panic and self hatred.

I'm hoping that engaging with Extinction Rebellion and actively trying to
pursue a career in energy and carbon sequestration can help me reduce the
guilt and become more productive.

------
devy
Who is the author Sam Hawkins?

~~~
sideshowb
Sam is a good friend of mine, so I'll answer. He will likely correct me on
this but I think roughly speaking, since his PhD he has spent 10 years using
weather forecast models and data science to help his employer sell the right
amount of wind generated electricity at the right price in short term energy
futures markets.

------
petermcneeley
Conclusion: "We each have a duty to make the moral effort not to be climate
deniers in our own way."

------
maxxxxx
Is this a perfect example for "clickbait"?

~~~
sctb
We've updated the title to a more representative phrase from the article.

~~~
sideshowb
Good work, I wonder why it got flagged though?

------
sys_64738
Notice how they try to get you to say "climate change" instead of "global
warming" nowadays. This is big business.

~~~
Vinnl
The article links to a website rebutting climate science myths [1]. It
addresses this point as well [2]: both terms are still used, and both terms
are still valid.

[1]
[https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)

[2] [https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-
warming.h...](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)

~~~
sys_64738
These read like talking point cards a politician would use. E.g. "Follow the
money" is rebutted with "I could make more money working in the oil industry".
That type of political style posturing does the global warming supporters no
good at all.

~~~
TheBeardKing
Your thought process reads like: "Anyone motivated to solve x issue is only
trying to make a buck by selling a solution."

What venture capitalists are funding these guys?
[https://climate.nasa.gov/](https://climate.nasa.gov/)

------
wolco
The missing piece of any climate model is how the earth will respond.

Do I think we are pumping co2 into the sky causing a raise in tempature? Yes.
What happens after is still unclear.

~~~
moreira
The planet itself will be absolutely fine. It's been through a heck of a lot
worse. Humans (and other animals) are the ones who are going to have to adapt,
hard.

As a small example, a rise in sea levels would make unlivable countless
coastal cities and destroy an immense amount of infrastructure. Humans will
-survive- it, but say good bye to our cushy 21st century lifestyle.

~~~
TheBeardKing
The difference here is the accleration of climate change, estimated to be
10-50x faster than previous transitions from cooler periods[1]. One study
finds that this accelerated warming could lead the extiction of 1 in 6
species[2].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-
consensus-97...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-
consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-
comes-out-of-an-ice-age) [2]
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571)

~~~
moreira
Yeah, but I think the parent posters' concern is that the outcome is
"unclear", and I was just pointing out that no matter what happens, the planet
will be fine, humans will survive, and our infrastructure is what'll be
impacted (and consequently, our lifestyle).

None of that is "unclear", I think. It all follows from "temperatures rise"
(which the parent concedes as a given). Ice melts. Waters rise. Life changes.

