Adam McKay, director of the climate alarmist film, “Don’t Look Up,” dialed the fear-porn up to 11 with this tweet claiming “We’ve got 6-8 years before the climate is so chaotic we live in a permanent state of biblical catastrophe & still we’re all walking around like it’s 1997 and we’re at a Third Eye Blind concert” and ” I’ll never ever get used to how frickin crazy it is to be alive right now”:
We’ve got 6-8 years before the climate is so chaotic we live in a permanent state of biblical catastrophe & still we’re all walking around like it’s 1997 and we’re at a Third Eye Blind concert. I’ll never ever get used to how frickin crazy it is to be alive right now.
— Adam McKay (@GhostPanther) February 6, 2022
Wow. That take was so bad even fellow climate alarmists are calling him out:
This is extremely unhelpful framing of climate change, which plays into the hands of climate deniers and delayers. We're not 6-8 years away from "permanent biblical catastrophe". Saying that we are is both incorrect and gives ammo to those who think climate change is overblown. https://t.co/QdeBme56lA
— Ramez Naam (@ramez) February 6, 2022
You see, they’re worried about “Republicans pounce” headlines:
Hi Adam, we DO need to act urgently to avoid locking-in severe climate impacts long-term BUT there's nothing to suggest "permanent biblical catastrophe" in 6-8 years
The problem with this kind of claim is that in 6-8 years people will use it to say "see, they were exaggerating!"
— Prof Richard Betts (@richardabetts) February 6, 2022
Global emissions need to be falling very rapidly within 6-8 years if we're to have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C
If we don't do that, it's not that all hell will suddenly break loose. But we will be committing ourselves to increasingly severe impacts later on.
— Prof Richard Betts (@richardabetts) February 6, 2022
And here’s a good thread from a climate scientist at NASA:
These kind of statements are ridiculous and problematic for many reasons. Here are 3 reasons: https://t.co/FQqfmypIZg
— Chris Colose (@CColose) February 6, 2022
1) It's inaccurate. There are no global-scale geophysical thresholds of this sort. While it may be true for very specific subsystems (e.g., an individual glacier, a particular species, a rainforest), those thresholds vary considerably and their impact on climate varies.
— Chris Colose (@CColose) February 6, 2022
2) it damages the credibility of a community (that is, *us*) who aren't making these predictions. I don't know how many "so why won't you refine the models because of this failed 12 year prediction I heard from someone" I've received. No. Stop speaking for us.
— Chris Colose (@CColose) February 6, 2022
3) It doesn't work, and probably leads to a certain nihilistic complacency if there is indeed an irreversible threshold. I mean, why have kids? Why do anything? And what if this 6-8 years passes, do we just sing Kumbaya by a fire and keep emitting carbon?
— Chris Colose (@CColose) February 6, 2022
Well, our advice to these people is that they should *begin* to care about global warming when Leo DiCaprio — the star of McKay’s climate movie — gives up his private jet travel:
Given that McKay has positioned himself as something more than a writer/director, I think it's fair to ask: What does he think ordinary people (not governments, not world leaders) should do on a daily basis regarding climate change, aside from panicking? https://t.co/Fo4pF2CdzC
— Daniel D'Addario (@DPD_) February 6, 2022
Until then? Meh:
And don’t get me wrong. I’m a part of it. I’m drinking a La Croix right now and watching a Grizzlies game.
— Adam McKay (@GhostPanther) February 6, 2022
***
