[flagged]
Right. Just because some predictions weren’t accurate, doesn’t mean they were directionally inaccurate. You biodiversity and total volume of plant/animal/marine biomass that’s not human or commercially consumed by humans has depleted in the last 50 years and it only accelerates every year. There objectively will be fewer whales, if any in 50 years. Life as we know is ending and has been for decades.
Fear is a strong motivator, but it is not a good one in this case. To really be effective, there must be the threat of direct, immediate, and severe consequences.
Instead it causes people to treat their messages as hyperbolic and undermines their entire movement.
Simple thought exercise (it's a 2x2):
What are the consequences of climate change being consequential vs inconsequential?
What are the consequences of us doing too little or too much to mitigate climate change?
Which quadrants are most consequential for the future of our planet?
Furthermore, most actions we can take to improve climate outcomes can also improve societal and technological outcomes. The only downside to taking more actions to have clean energy and less pollution are based on made up economic rules that normal people are supposed to follow, but that the super rich/powerful skirt at their leisure. A cleaner future benefits the VAST majority, irrespective of climate change. And the bonus is that if climate change does progress, we're better suited to manage it.
Or we can keep burning liquified dinosaur bones and partying like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get the appeal of the 60s for how care free people could be - they lived without consequence. And we're stuck dealing with their failed policies.
> liquified dinosaur bones
I know this is a nice factoid that does not need to be true. When I was 13 I did believed it, so now days I try to not spread this factoid. We can talk about the fascinating history of millions of years of efficient carbon storage on our planet.
I took it as sarcasm.