Climate change and human responsibility

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I don't know about you, but throughout my life I've been called I've been called all kinds of things:

- communist
- marxist
- libtard
- loser
- failure
- fag
- beta
- soyboy
- cu<k
- incel
- inbred
- parasite
- leech
- waste of skin

But as soon as I reply with any pushback at all, using a definitionally correct term to describe those who are denying reality (which as been corroborated through entire mountain ranges of peer reviewed scientific research)... suddenly it's "Gasp! How dare you spread negativity and division!"

Look, I get the need for both sides to stop calling each other names. But it has to be a two-way street. It has to. As a starting point, right-wingers need to stop calling anything that isn't 100% laissez-faire capitalism, communism.

They’ll never stop. You literally had two people calling someone a “hypocrite” and an “ass” and when someone said “that rhetoric comes from people associated with climate denialism” the immediate response was to whine about name calling.

The starting point might better be something around developing stronger self awareness than a goldfish. Then they can move on to more complex asks like “stop calling everything communism.”

[troutman]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I call him Maurice

Some call him the gangster of love.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost an ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.

The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.

Climate change isnt losing traction in the states because it has no bearing on political or ideological stances. It just is. Climate change will continue to occur. What you’re describing is climate change action. May sound like semantics but but it’s an important distinction especially when science is being disparaged in the current political climate. Debate scientifically on climate change, but not on ideological preferences.

I don’t care if “climate change” is losing traction in the US. It’s still occurring. At the end of the day, if someone rejects the notion of climate change, based on who they follow, still makes them a denier. If i refuse to listen to wealthy individuals who say the holocaust is real, but i reject that because of their wealth, it still makes me a holocaust denier (not conflating the two, as they’re vastly different subjects, using it as an example of ideological preferences). And who in their right mind would say, “let’s go easy on the holocaust deniers everyone.” If their reality isn’t actually reality, I’m not going to sit here and coddle them to make them feel better. Some opinions are just incorrect and need to be pointed out.

Now, if someone were to debate on the scientific findings of climate change, that is much different.

[CliffFletcher]

There's a whole spectrum of beliefs around climate change.

1) It's not really happening; it's a conspiracy to yield control over our sovereignty to global elites.

2) It's not really happening; scientists have got it wrong.

3) It is happening; humans aren't the main cause.

4) It is happening; humans are the main cause; there isn't really anything we can do about it.

5) It is happening; humans are the main cause; we can do something about it; we (Canadians/Americans/etc) shouldn't be expected to make sacrifices and incur costs when countries like China and India are major sources of GHG emissions.

6) It is happening; humans are the main cause; we can do something about it; I support my government taking measures so long as I don't personally suffer any inconvenience or expense.

7) It is happening; humans are the main cause; we can't do much to turn things around at this point, so efforts should be focused on developing technology to adapt to a warming climate.

8) It is happening; humans are the main cause; we can do something about it; to avert disaster, we need to take collective action that may entail sacrifices to our standards of living.

9) It is happening; humans are the main cause; we can do something about it; the root of the problem is a capitalist system built on unrelenting growth, and the only way to avert disaster is to fundamentally change our economic model.

Only 1 and 2 are deniers. 3 is ignorant, but not deniers. 4 is more pessimistic than ignorant. 5 and 6 are selfish - I'd wager they're also the most common stances on the issue. 7, 8, and 9 are different approaches to addressing the crisis.

[DownInFlames]

A lot of the professional deniers who were in categories 1 to 3 knew the reality and have moved on to 4, 5, 6, or even 7 because they know they can no longer dispute that it’s a thing, but damn it if they’re going to let that effect their bottom line.

[calgarygeologist]

I think you might have missed one category which is that climate change is happening but the weight of human impact is not understood and our ability to alter the path going forward is uncertain.

The whole system is really pretty poorly understood and complex to the point where modeling is probably not accurate. It is such a dynamic equilibrium trying to maintain homeostasis that a small trigger could set off drastic changes to compensate.

[WideReceiver]

I’ll go with door number 3.