Das ist halt der Brechmittel-Olaf. Der "ich Schlingel hab alles vergessen"-Olaf. Unser Gangster-Olaf aus ner ganz bösen 'hood.

Hehe, ich kann das sogar. Aber dennoch ist doch wohl eine Reparatur Garantie besser, wir müssen ja nicht hin. Aber es gibt Menschen, die können das nicht und denen wäre geholfen.

Das ist toll! Aber weil du das jetzt kannst, sollte ich das auch können? Oder was möchtest du damit sagen?

Fear often sits behind anxiety, and there’s been growing attention to climate anxiety. We don’t see that climate anxiety is really widespread among populations, but it is higher among younger people. Often it motivates action. What we found was that there is a positive relationship between climate anxiety and taking action to tackle climate change. Fear can be a motivator in the same way that we were just saying about anger.

This could be interesting to be studied more. All too often I hear "we need to stay optimistic to act" and "doomerism leads to inaction" without anything to back that up.

Decades of optimism about climate change have lead to hardly any action.

Personally I believe the average person needs to worry much more than they do now. While more people know about human made climate change now, most of them do so only superficially and very optimistically.

No

Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.

The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.

That all can be written. I just don't find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.

It's a human decision as it's humans who can make this decision.

However it's a decision that only a very small minority of humans can do, most of us have no say in this.

The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn't get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.

I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that's pretty much it. I don't like to compare the climate crisis to war.

Nature isn't fascist. Earth doesn't arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn't expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn't the aggressor, it's simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn't have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn't have morality.

And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren't opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can't save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don't harm it.

If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!

You mean the Pope who stood up so firmly against sexual abuse in his own house?

Dream on.

No, no, I've never said that. I am myself highly worried about many countries going further and further right.

I just thought that maybe there is a either European or international law that prohibits hindering people that help dying people. I'm pretty sure that there used to be a naval code, that sailors must help sailors.

I am not so crazy to think that it would have a high impact, but maybe Europe could threaten cutting financial aid or whatever.

But I see your point. With many countries going racist and with even a European border militia (Frontex), it's probably only in the interest of Europe to look away.

Imagine a world, where one gets punished for helping dying people.

No need to imagine, we live in that world.

But isn't there any European legislative that could overrule Italian's racist government?

Do you have any numbers or studies to support your claim?

I hear that all the time. I am a doomer and long for meaningful action, even if it makes my life harder.

I don't fly, hardly travel, live very simple without aircon or heating. Don't eat much meat.

I would love to travel. I enjoy driving, I have a thing for combustion engines. I most times sit out the heat and don't even turn on the fan. I like the taste of beef, yet never buy it. I do this despite me believing that it doesn't make much of a difference and it will certainly not save me.

Some rich person will pollute all I save during my life within a few minutes.

For real change, I believe, it must come from politics, not individuals. And forget about company's responsibility, they clearly don't care.

I just don't see this happening. That's why I believe we won't make it.

Yet, this realization has only made me restricting myself harder. Before I believed so, I lead a much more polluting way of life. "'Cause someone will figure it out"

I think like this: Knowing everyone must die one day, still in no way it justifies doing bad.

“Summed up, the industry’s treadmill is speeding up and this will make production growth more difficult than it was in the past,”

And I am darn happy about that! Still shamelessly talking about growth, that's just crazy.

I want to know how climatologists recommend dealing with depression.

Since I read this more often recently: I don't think the scientists are the right address for that. Scientists expertise is mostly factual, emotionless calculus and number evaluation. Some might deal with the same fears, just hiding them from the public.

Probably a scientist who has also expertise in psychology would do, though.

But ultimately, I think, the fear's and depression's origin comes from the knowledge that the way we live makes the situation only worse. So the only way to get rid of that conflict in the mind would be a meaningful change in the way we live. As that doesn't seem happen, we can only work to deal with the situation.

Thank you! If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. If I can't answer, maybe somebody else can. I read a lot about these things, but I am no scientist or expert.

If you want to take an advise: try to ask differently. Maybe it takes more than a single sentence, maybe admit like "I don't understand XY, can someone explain..." or something alike.

Your initial post and the second showed that you don't know but at the same time sounded like you were having doubt in science or didn't take it seriously. As there are plenty of people who doubt science but at the same time are not open to discussion, you might get down votes instead of answers.

Hey, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but try to help in case you really seek answers to your questions:

1880 was much cooler than today, globally about 1°C cooler. You'll find plenty of graphs showing the history of global temperatures online and animated videos on YouTube.

There have been times, where Earth has been hotter than today. We know quite a lot about Earth's history, it's astonishing. However, the big problem we are facing today isn't the temperature itself, but the speed of the change happening. When climate changes naturally it takes thousands of years. This allows for many plants and animals to adapt and migrate, not all though. Some are always left behind in this circle of life.

Today's temperature change appears to be faster than anything we see in history, posing the worry that a lot of life forms will not be able to adapt in time. If I recall correctly, today's atmosphere is changing about 200 times faster than it did during the most severe mass extinctions in history we know about and animals go extinct about 1000 times faster than they should in a world without humans.

In today's articles you often see "since 1880". There is older temperature data, both from thermometers as also from other more abstract sources, as for example air bubbles trapped in ice cores give an atmosphere reading of a time long ago etc. However, older measurements are highly localized and don't cover enough places of earth to get a reliable reading of global average temperatures.

It is also possible, that we will see this "measuring starting point" 1880 go back to earlier decades in future, as there are still tons of records that aren't evaluated yet. One example would be the detailed sailing ship logs of previous centuries that cover wide areas of Earth.

Yeah but no. It's fusion power, not fission, so something quite opposite, yet similar.

Singing along to Refused.

"I wanna watch the world burn for what we've become"

I'm sorry! It's just a song, I didn't mean it literally!

It seems to get more difficult to end an article with optimisms:

But it would be wrong to call what is happening a "climate collapse" [...] we still have time to secure a liveable future for many

For many, hm.

Reminded my of another article ending on

Here is where we need to invest and make changes and innovate and not give up. We can’t just write off billions of people.

Article mentioned

If "average" only would mean that the temperature is the same everywhere.