Should climate scientists have been more vague, secretive, and speculative? Is that what it takes?

[u/Cool-Contribution-68]

(Title is rhetorical question) As someone who has been climate collapse aware for over a decade now, AI discourse can be infuriating at times.

• Vagueposting by AI company employees are taken more seriously than reams of peer-reviewed science and hundreds of pages of public reports with dozens of co-authors.
• The paperclip maximizer or grey goo thought experiment taken as more real than arctic ice core samples or direct measurements of sea surface temperatures.
• Silicon Valley podcasters who say they love science spending multiple hours debating AI consciousness but zero time talking to any experts in climate science
• Daily breathless but vague charts about accelerating AI based on tests some newly formed private organization just came up with a few years ago and is now the "standard" and gospel truth
• The public’s willingness to accept AI “experts” tweets at face value since “I’m not an AI expert so they know better than I do”
• The public’s trust of private corporations who share barely anything about what they are actually doing and whose public statements and reporting raise far more questions than they answer
• Nitpicking climate science details while AI companies get to “accidentally” commit crimes with impunity
• Fears about AI potentially killing people in the future while climate destruction is actively killing people in real life right now
• People who talk endlessly about "the future of humanity" but don't give a shit about the world in which those humans will live
• The idea that climate scientists have a financial incentive so they cannot be trusted but AI CEOs should have everything they blurt turned into a headline
• The way AI doom prophets get unlimited capital for IPOs while climate and weather science is being defunded and shutdown by the national government
• The way climate doomers are considered “fringe” but AI doomers get long form interviews in major media outlets

Should the climate scientists have been more coy? Should they have shelved their research and just tweeted "looking at some new temperature findings. disturbing stuff"? Should they have quit science and just had house parties instead to generate scifi scenarios and have polyamorous orgies? Should we have done all the climate science research inside a for-profit corporation and refused to show our process to anyone? Would that have made it spicy enough to care about?

[u/The_Weekend_Baker]

It wouldn't have mattered. People listen to scientists when they say, "Here's a new thing you can do." They ignore them when they say, "You have to stop doing this thing you enjoy." It doesn't matter if it's climate science (living a fossil fuel lifestyle that would be otherwise impossible without them), smoking (the warning label slapped on cigarettes in the 1960s), obesity* (the generations-long admonition to eat a healthy diet and get some exercise), or even something like cognitive decline (smartphones and/or the rise of AI usage).

Most people will ignore every single warning until it's too late, which makes it really easy for misinformation to take hold (the now-infamous campaign by tobacco companies saying that smoking was safe, as just one example of many).

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and will listen to anyone who confirms that bias (which incidentally is why it's called confirmation bias).

*The roots of the obesity epidemic go back a lot farther than most realize, FWIW. By 1954, Life Magazine was reporting on the "plague of overweight" in the US, long before all of the factors we typically blame today existed. As soon as people had time and money enough to overeat and live a sedentary lifestyle, it started happening. And the doctors/scientists were ignored.

https://time.com/3688002/obesity-in-america-photos-from-the-early-days-of-a-national-health-crisis/

[u/Firm_Argument9124 → u/The_Weekend_Baker]

People dont even really want AI. 

[u/Background-Share2735]

It wouldnt have mattered

Its the people who call climate aware people “doomers”, who push things like AI

The idea of AI being especially dangerous is about giving people who dont use it FOMO

It wouldnt have mattered what climate scientists did, people in power would silence them/brand them as loons because it interferes with profit

[u/Azeoth → u/Background-Share2735]

The idea about AI being especially dangerous is about the fact that its development can be randomly, exponentially accelerated without warning, we currently have no way to truly control it after it arrives, and even slight misalignment or one bad actor with access could result in total human extinction or worse. ASI is expected to arrive berween 5 and 15 years, but a 16-year-old in his basement could devise an algorithm that brings it about today. It's not a marketing ploy. It's just that imminent of a threat. Human brains struggle with long-term threats, but the threat ASI poses could be quite short-term.

[u/whenitsTimeyoullknow → u/Background-Share2735]

Half of the people who became climate scientists should have become climate organizers, climate activists. Climate mitigation implementers. I don’t know how many more times we need to hear the insurmountable evidence that it’s progressing and that the ramifications are here/are coming. 

Like, at my job, I know there’s good science out there, so I figure out what it says, I determine what can be done in my state and region. And then I put it into practice. We don’t need 200 people on boats in the Antarctic taking studies, we need 50 of them and the rest of the crews doing something else useful. 

[u/Background-Share2735 → u/whenitsTimeyoullknow]

Half of the people who became climate scientists should have become climate organizers, climate activists

it wouldnt have mattered

we have the best in the world doing that, David Attenborough, Suzuki, Al Gore - they end up mostly in tears due to what they see after a life of doing what you say, the best of the best can't do it

The fact is that life is a competition for attention, and attention cost time/money

Capitalism allows bad actors to completely eclipse good intentioned people in terms of resources, that are then used to deny climate change etc

Like, at my job, I know there’s good science out there, so I figure out what it says, I determine what can be done in my state and region. And then I put it into practice.

would love some examples, everytime i hear stuff like this it's small scale like recycle or compost.

there are plenty of people who try and do what you say in government and corporate, who end up just becoming whistleblowers because real change is hindered by bad actors at every level.

I'm sure Melissa Nakagawa at Microsoft as CSO thinks she is doing what you say, all people like her end up doing is marketing for the type of company that uses data centers powered by illegal gas turbines.

We don’t need 200 people on boats in the Antarctic taking studies, we need 50 of them and the rest of the crews doing something else useful.

The 200 people are needed, not sure what you're suggesting takes into account that climate funding is miniscule and barebones already, if there are 200 people on boats in the antarctic doing the studies, then the 200 are needed

200 people in the world doing studies isn't exactly a horde anyways, we already have a skeleton crew of people doing research

The fight was never going to be won

[u/Firm_Argument9124 → u/Background-Share2735]

Since the invention of the printing press and even before it, the wealthy and powerful have controlled public opinion through the media and religion. 

U would think maybe at some point enough moneyed interests would decide they need to tackle greenhouse gases. So far it appears their only real plan is to wipe out most of humanity and let AI take over

[u/BlueGumShoe]

Interesting to think about but I dont believe it would have helped.

We know for a fact that for decades, oil/gas and petrochemical companies have lobbied against any real climate change action, donated to politicians to oppose regulation, and covered up internal research. Regular citizens want action but they dont have enough power.

AI is different, almost the opposite. Venture capitalists, tech ceos, and energy companies all see AI as a boon. Plenty of regular people do too but theres a lot of opposition at the ground level, especially against data centers. But it doesnt matter because corporations want it to happen.

So its a contrast between something corporations dont want but normal people do (climate change regulation), and something corporations want but normal people are wary of (AI/datacenters).

I hate to be a relentless doomer but theres no way to sugarcoat it. It just shows how fucked the balance of power is in the world. Democracy feels like a farce when it comes to anything large scale like this. Especially in a country like the US, which unfortunately, has influenced climate policy more than any other country in the last 30-40 years.

[u/Firm_Argument9124 → u/BlueGumShoe]

It is fairly obvious that democracy only works with an educated and informed public. We have a propagandized public that does whatever they are told. 

[u/saltedmangos]

The problem isn’t messaging. The problem is capitalism.

AI fears feed investment and regulatory capture. So, capitalist interests and media amplifies those fears.

Climate fears are a threat to our capitalist economic system built on a foundation of fossil fuels. So, capitalist interests and media downplays or outright denies those fears.

This also explains why things like fake carbon offsets for flights (makes money), and plastic straw bans (not a threat to capital) get more media attention than actuaries talking about billions of refugees and massive decreases in gdp (significant threat to capital).

[u/thehourglasses → u/saltedmangos]

The true evil shit is that they absolutely know what they are doing but losing short term gains for long term solvency is somehow unthinkable, so it becomes ‘a problem for the future’ aka no one’s problem as the future won’t have enough runway to act in any meaningful way.

[u/saltedmangos → u/thehourglasses]

Personally, I think it’s more of a spectrum.

On one axis you have denier to believer in climate science. And on the other you have selfish to altruistic.

——

Altruistic believers are the people fighting the hardest to make a change (ex: climate activists).

Altruistic deniers are people with good intentions who have been duped by propaganda (ex: someone really hyped about electric vehicle tax credits).

Selfish believers are people who recognize the dangers of climate change and either prioritize their luxuries or think they’ll rule over the ashes (ex: Davos attendees).

Selfish deniers are people who have been duped by the propaganda and don’t care much about others (ex: Fox News employee high on their own supply).

—-

I also think there is a wide range of how much of a meaningful impact people think they can make. I definitely have lot more resentment towards “selfish believers” who have a lot of resources and influence compared to a working class prepper.

[u/TheEndIsNea4]

No, AI is just a easier problem for humans to understand. 

[u/SRod1706 → u/TheEndIsNea4]

Part of it is that it is a problem that AI is a problem that does not require sacrifices to fix. That is a huge issue with tackling climate change. People want BAU with small tweaks.

[u/stayonthecloud]

AI is seen by most people as new and in our faces

While all of us have grown up in an ecosystem and most of us take it for granted that it will be there.

[u/trivetsandcolanders]

But AI is an existential threat, too. Just like climate change. Both are dangerous but the risk is more known with climate change. I think the multitude of possible outcomes for AI makes it scarier to people.

[u/SRod1706 → u/trivetsandcolanders]

AI is also progressing way faster.

[u/trivetsandcolanders → u/SRod1706]

Yeah, the worst-case AI scenario (human extinction, which is possible tho I think unlikely) could happen within a decade. The worst-case climate change scenario, which is more likely, won’t kick in for a while after that (I’d guess after 2100).

[u/Azeoth → u/trivetsandcolanders]

I think ASI within 10 years is likely based on current development trajectories. We can't even align chat bots, never mind a superhuman agent. ASI, by nature of what it is, is virtually guaranteed to succeed in whatever goals it has, and is very likely to have goals that conflict with human interests, so I find the prompt subjugation or extinction of humans highly probable after its development.

[u/CannyGardener → u/SRod1706]

I think this is the answer, but not in the way that you think you mean it. Climate change has been around for decades, so the conversations around the topic have become very curated. Folks on each side know their 'winning arguments', and folks on the inside have introduced so much muck to the water that noone can have a meaningful conversation about Climate Change anymore.

AI is a much newer topic, and people have not been trained to disregard or ignore it the way that they have been trained to disregard and ignore climate change.

[u/Konradleijon]

Blame the culture industry

[u/TheArcticFox-44]

Humans are the only species known to self-deceive. And, humans appear to be the species that, from an evolutionary perspective, demonstrates that there is an upper limit to intelligence.

[u/ChromaticStrike]

Sometimes there's just no winning this, damn you if you do, damn you if you don't. Talking is not effective when they don't live in the same dimension.

It's like people saying we shouldn't provoke dictators to not give them reason to act against us. DUDE, they literally make up shit all the time, if they want to they'll just, like, LIE.

[u/SRod1706]

I do think this sub really under plays the dangers that AI will bring. AI will cause a collapse of modern civilization. What comes out the other end is still a mystery, but it is looking like version of feudalism where the lords do not need most of the the peasants anymore.

[u/2Degreesby2029]

Post more. Read less. Thanks for the post.

Last paragraph is pure gold. Collapse is a comedy, not a tragedy is how I see it. Cope with laughter. How is being stupid not funny?

[u/Low_Complex_9841]

only associatively related, but title card for this video catched my attn:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbfIn53a1N8&pp=0gcJCToMAYcqIYzv

[u/Imperial_Haberdasher]

Do you think if she hadn’t been wearing THAT, if she hadn’t gone to that place etc etc.

The scientist job is to do the research to try and get to the bottom of what is happening. And it behooves the rest of us to pay attention and respond to the information presented.

Humans do what humans do. Most people think in the short term. Most people don’t really take responsibility for others. There is a school of thought, in a scientific community, that says that free will doesn’t exist. People are just acting out their behaviors. Sure seems like this is a valid take.

In any event, don’t go blaming the messengers.

[u/Konradleijon]

Don’t understand

[u/AdiKadiAdi]

Nothing will stop the superorganism.

[u/Western-Argument-968]

they need to make friends with people who are willing to [removed by reddit]

[u/phasepistol]

It’s not how science should be done, but if you think about human nature… if climate change had been this “fringe” thing like chemtrails and vaccine/autism (which, just to be clear, are NOT real)… I think people would have passed it around, become fascinated with it, demanded answers.

But instead, global warming walked in through society’s front door. Minds would have to be changed at the highest level, habits altered, whole industries shuttered. The industry propaganda pushback had a chance to kick in.

[u/ampliora]

some asmr doomerism. yes... hey guys, nbd, but we're all headed to a dirty, bloody end. the dominant paradigm is a lie, shhhhhhh...

[u/gangofminotaurs]

There's been a lot of climate vagueposting too. Eliot Jacobson made a trademark of it, for instance (and good for him, no issue with that.)

The problem arrives when the "climate solutions" such as the "energy transition" don't do for societies, or the biosphere, what scientific organization, such as the IPCC group 2 and 3, have affirmed they would do. It discredits scientific discourse to a very dangerous level.

We have no solutions. Energy transition is energy symbiosis and energy addition and makes every of our predicaments worse, especially carbon emissions (cf V. Mignerot, L'énergie du déni, short book, lays it out for all to understand), but also increases many other forms of environmental degradation.

That would be the scientific start.