Could you be with a partner who doesn't believe in climate change?

[ToDoLists]

DH doesn't really think it's all that bad. He thinks we should be recyling more and caring for the planet as makes sense and is just the right thing to do - but that climate change as a disaster is an exaggeration and not based in science. And that people are utilising it for their own agenda, woke brigade & so on.

We have young kids.

AIBU to find this position increasingly problematic?

People are going to say people are allowed different opinions but he seems geniunely unconcerned about future of planet for our kids - and I find that hard to swallow.

Some terrible scumbag comments, sanctimonious, virtuous, pompous bullshit. I wonder how many of you have opened your homes to the "asylum seekers" and people aren't anti-vax they are anti-Covid vaxxers and with just cause just appalling, some of these comments

Yes. He’s one tiny human. Get on with your lives and enjoy your family. There are billionaires sending rockets into space, what’s the worst your DH is going to do? Put his jam jar in the bin 🙄

No as I like intelligent people who believe in science.

Not believing climate change is like not believing gravity...its not about beliefs and opinions, it's science! It would make me seriously question his views on the world

From todays headline

In a roadmap to net zero emissions drawn up by the International Energy Agency, there should have been no new oil and gasfields approved for development from 2021. Instead, governments including the US, UKand Australia have granted licences to drill for more.

Marina Romanello, a climate and health researcher at University College London and head of the Lancet Countdown, said: “We have data showing how the very foundations of health are being undermined by climate change and, despite that knowledge, we’re seeing governments and companies still prioritising fossil fuels.

“But we still have time today to turn the tide and to ensure a liveable future for us and our children.”

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

From the New York Times

I was going to say yes, I could still be with such a partner as long as they still recycled and tried to reduce their carbon footprint.
But not if they use words like "woke brigade" and believe in conspiracy theories. That's too much of a difference in values.

Can't believe people are saying it's "the science" when we've had the last three years of covid "science" which was all completely wrong.

Is that a truncated BBC logo bottom right of that graph?

Why are you trying to hide where that graph came from?

Co2 makes up 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere.

At 0.02% plants start dying.

If the plants die, we die.

I think the problem is that the government and media went to town on COVID and the vaccines and now nobody believes a thing they say. Climate change is real, absolutely it is but they played their hand too heavily with COVID and now people aren't believing things are as bad as they say. Do I blame them? No.

I know someone who is very mentally unwell due to anxiety around climate change, they can't eat, sleep or function at all. As long as people are recycling and reducing their carbon footprint I wouldn't break up with them.

Hide? I wasn't trying to hide anything, just where I cropped it to fit.

You're a conspiracy theorist then obvs. There are so many papers I could share with you but it would be completely pointless wouldn't it.

None so blind as those that will not see ...

🤣

Snap.

The BBC are not who record or compile that data, obviously. Feel free to look at the same or similar graph as published by a multitude of other sources.

No. There's a difference between having a different opinion and simply being wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence. It takes a special kind of stupid, the flat earther kind of stupid, and that kind of stupid you can't argue with. I'm with Bonhoffer on this.

Try NASA then or are they too biased for you?

Oh and the NASA chart goes back 800,000 years for those who insist on bringing up the medieval ice age as some sort of Gotcha

Yup, quite serious! Aren't you in denial though?

See NASA chart I've just posted above, what am I supposed to be in denial about exactly?

not sure what is this proving? but hey, you have all the right to believe in human caused climate change, like I have to not believe it.. free country, no?

Agree with you. The doom merchants are full of 'emergency' but e.g. wild fires happen in Greece every year. The consequences of giving up fossil fuels, restricting people's movement for most ordinary people and making women's lives especially more difficult are dire.

He obviously cares. He wants to control pollution, which is far more of a threat than the climate emergency, which is no emergency but will make the super rich super richer. Listen to him.

To the non believers, I don't think this thread will age well.

I've followed climate change for 45 years, I've not just jumped on the band wagon, albeit it's interesting to see my views have slowly become mainstream.

I'm interested in asking the deniers, how many people do you think we can possibly cram on to the planet before life becomes unsustainable and before the planet itself begins to die off in parts? I'm genuinely interested as to what you think? Do you believe the planet can just keep regenerating or replacing as we chop, pollute and consume our way through it? Do you appreciate that to go from 1 billion population around 100 years ago to nearing 10 billion in 25 years time must have a detrimental effect? I honestly want to know.

Some scientists were completely and demonstrably wrong on Covid.

Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford is an obvious one. He argued that governments were overreacting to Covid and predicted that deaths is the US would not exceed 10,000 - a figure that ultimately was less than 1% of the total deaths in the US.

I expect, though, that you are referring to anyone who predicted a greater number of deaths than ultimately occurred.

Arguments like that usually misunderstand what the science was.

For one thing, Covid 19 was a new virus and, although scientists could refer to similar viruses to extrapolate how it might evolve, it is not something that could be predicted with certainty. Scientists could also not predict what measures governments would introduce to limit the spread.

Accordingly, predictions had to be made with references to variables. I.e., what would a best case scenario look like (Covid quickly evolving to become less lethal, strong measures in place to prevent the spread) versus a worst case scenario (Covid evolves to become more lethal, and no serious measures are put in place).

Of course, Covid did become less lethal over time (which was always viewed as the most likely scenario) vaccines were created, and most countries introduced strong measures to prevent its spread.

Just because the worst case scenario doesn’t come to pass every time (particularly when active steps are taken to prevent the worst case occurring) doesn’t mean the science was wrong. If a better outcome than the best case scenario, or a worse outcome than the worst case scenario occurs, then it’s reasonable to ask what went wrong - but neither of those things happened.

(I imagine there are several scientists like professor Ioannidis that were completely and demonstrably wrong, but that does not equate to ‘all of the science being completely wrong’.)

THIS!

I do agree that climate doomism is unhelpful. We have already likely avoided the worst case predictions of 20 years ago, through postitive global action. We are still currently on a bad course, though.