• burningquestion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I read the Fourth IPCC Assessment in 2007 and was like “wow, they have to know they’re being too conservative with their estimates”

    Basically, if anyone had looked at the IPCC reports that had been produced even before 2010, it was obvious how much airbrushing and wishful thinking was going on to make it look like everything was fine. But instead of looking at the reports overall, people just wanted to read the comforting, obviously wrong even then conclusions at the very end.

    If you really looked at the level of uncertainty involved in the projections, and thought about it honestly, anyone could have have realized long before 2010 that, at level best, world leaders were literally gambling with the future of this entire global civilization because it was easier than telling fossil fuel companies to get fucked.

      • burningquestion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, I know. But see how downplaying serious threats to civilization plays out. The IPCC 2007 report screwed the climate movement during likely its most critical period (earlier action is always better, but the late 2000’s-2010’s were sort of our last window for avoiding the really awful stuff, so in a way that was sort of the most important time to be ringing the alarm imho – at this point, we just get to respond to the out of control emergency that’s now starting to play out) because everybody could officially point to it and say “look? see? we’re fine! it’s fine! shut up!”

        Climate denialism that merely comes from a CYA/institutional politics angle is still climate denialism.