"The truth is more complicated. Climate change won’t destroy the planet, although it will change the environment we’re accustomed to, in ways we can't predict and with possibly dire consequences. And weaponizing “failed predictions” of the past to justify leaving the climate problem to the market is deceptive. If we don't act because a previous prediction "failed," we face an array of human suffering, which will hit the poorest and disadvantaged the hardest."
Have you ever heard of "the boy who cried wolf"?
If your group has consistently foretold the horrors of the world ending for half a century, and these horrific events never come to pass despite 99% of these "climate goals" never being met, it may be time to question how these people are coming to these conclusions. It reminds me of the religious cults that are constantly preaching about the end of the world, then change the date to a later date when it turns out the rapture didnt happen. Much like those in the cult, every time climate "scientists " wildly miss the mark they simply move the date back 10 years with excuses of how their models were "inaccurate" but now we have "new data" to show the climate rapture will ABSOLUTELY happen this time. And now, we can add "muh disavdvantaged groups" for extra emotional manipulation, because peopel are starting to question how you can make a career out of constantly being wrong.
Pointing to the past failures of early climate models and calling it a hoax merely based on that ignores the fact that the concrete actions we have taken have certainly made an impact.
Your "concrete actions" have resulted in total imperical output of CO2 globally increasing by over 100% since 1977. In 77 it was 18.5 billion tons of CO2. In 2022 it was 37.49 billion.
Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.
www.statista.com
And yet, despite this being the "worst case scenario" for climate scientists in the 70s, 80s, 90,s, ece, none of their predictions of global annihilation came true. Florida was supposed to be underwater by
2000 2010 2020 if CO2 output didnt decrease. It has doubled, yet florida remains above water.
So what gives? Why should we have any stock in any current predictions when all the past ones have failed miserably despite a worst case scenario? Why is THIS time the truly accurate time that we have "5 years" before there is permanent damage (whatever that means)? This is why people question the entire movement.
Even if you don't believe in any of the outcomes of climate change models, everyone should want clear air, less pollution, and healthy biodiversity. You don't need to believe in climate change to want those, the benefit is obvious and happens to almost always coincide with helping offset greenhouse gas output.
Yes, clean air and water is nice. You know what isnt nice? Torpedoing out entire power grid, transportation infrastructure, farming infrastructure, ece to achieve this, ruining the lives of the very billions we are supposed to be "saving". It would also be nice if, in the headlong attempts tp trust into the "clean" age, we didnt obliterate rivers in the congo and australia with cobalt and nickel poisoning, or pump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the pacific while making solar panels that we will cut down acre upon acre of wild territory for.
But those are not CO2, so we dont care about them right now. We're just trading a bad problem for a worse one. CO2 can be scrubbed via plants, CO2 scrubbers, ece. Heavy metal poisoning not so much.
Just as an example, if the US were to invest 384 million per year for 5 years in upgrading transmission lines, it would allow green energy to be built at scale in locations that are best suited for it and that energy could then be sold around the country. This would create a ton of jobs, go a long way to de-carbonizing the grid, decrease the cost of electricity by vastly increasing the energy market suppliers could sell to / reducing transmission losses, decrease pollution, and increase the reliability of the electric grid.
Yes, it would be nice if we invested in our electric grid. Of course, that "green energy" will never be able to stabilize a grid without nuclear energy, which is constantly denied as a viable energy source, because the sun doesnt shine at night no matter how much you ask it to.
People aren't tired of the topic because climate change doesn't exist. People are tired because the blame gets shifted onto them, when they have no choice but to buy and use the energy-hungry pieces of crap pushed out by megacorporations that actually have the power to do something. Most people just want to live a normal life without being blamed for the world's problems, that's all.
I'm tired of it being used as an excuse to rip apart parts of our lives with the claim of being benevolent. Yes, the climate is changing. No, it will not be the end of humanity. No, we do not need to rip our economy apart in 5 years to prevent the boogeyman of the rapture from taking us all. If environmentalists were pushing for more nuke plants to bring an end to natural gas and coal in our power grid, and advocating for a total grid rebuild alongside it to support things like EV mandates, I'd be a lot more supportive of their efforts.
