Move Over Oppenheimer - The genocidal consequences of climate scientists still minimizing how bad things really are.

[SamuelTheThird]

This piece really nails it. An excerpt wont do it justice

We've also had in the past few years heat anomalies in the ocean he didnt mention that scientists still havent explained, that surpassed the models

https://jacksondamian.substack.com/p/move-over-oppenheimer

[AZJonnie]

1. "Genocidal" is a pretty extreme representation of the situation

"Blaming the scientists for not telling people how BAD it would really be" is the sort of thing I expect the wingnuts of the world to eventually pivot to, en masse, when even they can no longer pretend "it's a democrat hoax". Overnight, they'll get the order that this is the proper angle from wingnut leadership, and they'll unblinkingly adopt it. "So it's super-real, and it's REALLY the fault of the scientists for not telling us the severity decades ago!!!", completely ignoring the fact that ALL ALONG they've claimed the exact opposite. Wingnuts have a unique ability to do this sort of mental gymnastics I've noticed in my decades of dealing with them.

They also very often come around belatedly to the shit that liberals correctly told them about, that they denied for years, and then make up excuses for why they were idiots until recently. Look at MAHA, for example, harping about pesticides and herbicides en masse, after making fun of "granola girls", and "farming communes" and "organic food" and things like that for fucking decades, because it was hippy-dippy liberal nonsense back then

[SamuelTheThird]

2. the word genocide is not in the LEAST extreme

Just read this.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221357010

And calling the person a right winger or something is absurd. The IPCC has been criticized for being too conservative by distinguished climate scientists like Kevin Anderson too

[AZJonnie]

3. I wasn't calling anyone involved a right winger, I'm saying I expect one day they'll do an about face on ACC

And try to blame scientists for not having expressed enough urgency, while all along they themselves were calling it a hoax and/or totally overblown.

Yes, IMHO the word "genocidal" is way extreme. There's no reason to suggest that scientists are underplaying it because they want to wipe out populations based on their genes. That's what the insinuation is, and I do NOT think it's appropriate.

I think generally the science has been done with integrity, and there's a lot that's unknown, therefore, there's a large range of possible outcomes. And yes, I also have a problem with the glacial pace of research, and the temporal consistency problem mentioned in the article. It may even be that some of the people we used to trust have been lured by the darkside. Maybe even for money. But not because they are blithely intending to wipe out people based on their genes, so they're downplaying the situation.

IMHO that is an excellent article but the author has seriously degraded it's quality with extremist, click-bait nonsense like "genocidal". I think that's unfortunate.