Is a lot of fear about climate change simply alarmism?

I've found myself reading some articles and actually being scared about the future. Some are actually ridiculous but could definitely be very scary, like one from an Australian "think tank" that claimed the world would end by 2050 because of climate change. Climate Feedback is a great website, made up of scientists who review articles and claims. this article was completely debunked, along with countless other fear inducing ones. eco anxiety is now a diagnosed condition.

I'm not trying to dismiss climate change, but i do think a lot of it is genuine alarmism, and obviously that helps groups like extinction rebellion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

999tigger

Original post by Ferrograd

Well do you think mankind has an impact on the environment in terms of population and what they do? If you dont then you are fine, if you do, then you have to gauge what that impact might be and which of the many metrics you can use.

Care to link your 2050 article?

If you think most of it is genuine alarmism, then nothing to worry about and it wont affect you or if you have any children.

Reply 2

username4528716

Original post by 999tigger

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-end-human-civilisation-research-a8943531.html

Of course, man has an impact on the population. I'm not denying anthropogenic climate change. We are indeed accelerating a national process, just look at the arctic.

It just seems a lot of people are actually discrediting science by rushing to be the first to deliver the grimmest headlines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/.

The 2050 article also took into account things that have nothing to do with climate change - like a literal ****ing nuclear war breaking out over lack of resources.

It wasn't even written by scientists, and yet the media is reporting it.

The forest fires in Brazil, as bad as they were, were nowhere near as bad as the frequency and ferocity of those in the early 2000s.

Reply 3

Nalk1573

The Illuminati want you to live in fear.

These people believe in deep mystical ideas and one of these ideas is that when people feel negative emotions, especially fear, they can draw energy out of you and control you through it.

The truth is giant corporations are hiding the solutions that help the environment and forcing people to use petrol, plastic and other harmful chemicals.

Reply 4

Just my opinion

I have noticed that it's almost unheard of for climate believers (for want of a better term) to debate climate deniers on the same stage at the same time where they could challenge one another. Believers simply won't do it. In fact there have been cases of them walking off stage simply because a denier had joined them.
Make of that what you will.

Reply 5

username4528716

Original post by Just my opinion

Maybe because it's just not worth debating someone who'se ,mind you're not going to change?

The way I see it, I don't just get that scientists have got it wrong and the amount of people who believe in it disproves that it is somehow false

Reply 6

999tigger

Original post by Ferrograd

I have read your articles.
Articles 1 concerning the Australian think tank. Think tanks are meant to explore ideas and think outside the box. It doesnt claim to be a scientific paper, but it is meant to draw attention to the natural consequences if climate change continues to increase at the current rate and what the implications are in terms of risk, especially if we go beyond the tipping point and it moves out of humankinds ability to reverse. I would pay less attention to 2050 and consider is the situation getting worse, are we doing enough to change our impact and what will the consequences be. The thinktank is doings its job which is to consider various scenarios in its areas of concern and speculate what it believes might happen as a result.

Article 2 I thought was less interesting.

It covers misinformation on the internet on both sides which isn't just a problem for climate change .
Peoples inability to research

Still doesnt get past the fact if C02 and greenhouses gases continue to rise, polar ice caps continue to melt at an increase rate, then rise in sea temperature has a profound effect. Put that up against ever increasing population and ever greater pollution, then at some stage those factors have a serious effect, which then has implications for humans be that 30, 50 or 100 years down the line. If people cant live easily because of lack of food and water, they will move, such migrations will have a big impact.

Just be more discriminating in what you are reading and id articles which are giving you verified facts rather than those which are just opinion. At current rates of expansion and consumption I see the situation getting worse and I dont see humans doing much about it.

Reply 7

username1799249

I think it is classic bury your head in the sandism. It is such a massive problem on such a scale coupled with the fact that most feel powerless to do anything and time and financial constraints it is easier to do nothing. And if challenged just how is it possible you can just shut the argument down by saying it is a scam.

If we are to change behaviour we need to somehow empower people to make cost neutral choices.

Reply 8

username4528716

Thing is, its not individual people, its big corporations. They have started peddling the lie that it is the individual, yet it is a small minority who have to spoil it for the rest of us as with most things.

Reply 9

Retired_Messiah

Broke: Climate change will kill you and your children by 2050
Woke: People are a bit alarmist: we still need to fight man-made climate change, but we don't need to start a doomsday cult.
B e s p o k e:

Original post by Nalk1573

Reply 10

nexttime

I mean, when it comes to the literal end of the world it kind of makes sense to play things on the safe side! That's not alarmist - that's pragmatism!

Where anyone is making up or exaggerating the facts though, that is obviously not helpful to the cause.

Reply 11

ThomH97

A lot is alarmism, but that's because a lot of people won't pay attention to anything that isn't clickbaity, and those that do need to be scared into doing extra to compensate.

Reply 12

bobbles52

Original post by Ferrograd

I don't think the general public is fearful of man-made global warming. Many believe it to be at best a mistaken belief, at worst, a scam.

Reply 13

Ragman75

Original post by Ferrograd

Yes it is look at the people that lead the green movement, and what they do. Extinction rebellion protest in the centre of the capital of one of the greenest countries in the world, but suspiciously do not protest the embassies of countries like china, India or Saudi Arabia. Then they also jumped on the tube for some reason because I guess they either forgot it transports thousands of people each day reducing thus each persons carbon footprint by huge amounts or they just want people to to only bike and walk, hell it might be both. Look at Greta thunberg aswell, she is literally an autistic mouth piece for her anti capitlaist anti industry parents. At the end of the day the modern eco movement is a hug box for upper middle class people that want to feel like they are fighting for something greater, and hate capitalism because they feel guilty about all of privilege it gave them. You can tell all this becuase again none of them care about addressing the fact that the real poluters in the world(china, india etc), none of them support nuclear because it wouldn't be detrimental to industry and all of their ideas about how to help the environment involved sweeping government regulation instead of trying to work with the market.

Reply 14

Ragman75

Original post by ThomH97

A lot is alarmism, but that's because a lot of people won't pay attention to anything that isn't clickbaity, and those that do need to be scared into doing extra to compensate.

No thats not true its alarmist because the leadership of the eco movement hates capitalism and industry and only the alarmist policies and sentiments are detrimental to both of those things.

Reply 15

username1539513

I don’t know if on the whole it’s true or not; I do know though that most of the record breaking heat days have been in the past decade or so and there is masses of plastic trash in the ocean. I don’t see the harm in switching to stainless steel or silver straws and cutting back on the meat a little

Reply 16

Ragman75

its likely not the predictions are always wrong, and the record breaking heat days are only records in a relatively small amount of time we can accurately keep track. The masses of plastic in the Ocean comes almost exclusively from Asia, so swapping to stainless steel or silver straws wont help. Also if we cut back on meat then more people will get more food from overseas because most people cant get a varied cheap locally sourced food, and even if they did crop farming destroys top soil and you need animals to graze walk and sh it on it to return it to normal.

Reply 17

anarchism101

There is, undoubtedly some "overcorrection" - both activists and journalists have often become conscious in the past couple of years that they'd underestimated and ignored the impact of climate change, and so now they're reluctant to dismiss some pieces that are indeed exaggerated and alarmist. That said though, the same climate scientists who debunk these alarmist pieces are also quite clear that climate change is not some minor nuisance - they say it's one of the most important and dangerous, if not the most important and dangerous, the world currently faces, and likely will be for several more decades at the least.

Reply 18

Vinny C

Wow... what we have now is nothing compared to the end of the ice age. Sea levels rose 100 metres in 50 yrs but we didn't have costal cities back then. Well, we did... Ur, Atlantis... etc. Lost in legend. Suppose that was man's fault too?

Reply 19

username4528716

I actually read an article the other day that tree coverage has increased by 7% since 1982. So whilst many rainforests are being lost, the overall tree coverage is not. Which can only be good news, but of course papers like The Independent have to put a negative on it by claiming this is due to trees growing in "warming" climates.

The attitude of alarmism is linked to resignism, and if this challenge is so important to take up, the attitude of it being "too late" seems very, very counterprodutive. Scientists should do more to speak out against it.