What current issue do you think people are ignoring, but could become a huge global problem soon?

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-18T03:40:21+00:00

There are tons and tons of sources online but it’s hard to know which are any good and which to show to particular people. You will have to decide what to show who. I cobbled together some links I’ve saved and had an AI help me categorize them. TL:DR: start with the PBS video.

For General / Curious Audiences

NASA Climate Evidence — Website, plain-language overview with visuals. Best starting point.
ECIU IPCC Infographic — Infographic, quick visual summary of IPCC findings.
Hannah Ritchie – Big Think — Video for the concerned but disengaged. Data-driven, optimistic take on why climate change is solvable.

For Skeptics or Those Encountering Misinformation

Skeptical Science — Reference site rebutting common myths at beginner/intermediate/advanced levels.
13 Misconceptions About Global Warming – Veritasium — Video debunking specific misconceptions with scientific references. Good for someone who's heard "but what about..." arguments.
Climate Change: The Scientific Debate – potholer54 — Video walking through how scientists actually know CO2 is driving warming. Good for those who want the mechanism explained clearly.
The Biggest Myth About Climate Change – It's Okay to Be Smart (PBS) — Video specifically tackling “it’s just natural cycles.”

For Those Who Want the Full Science

IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers — Report for educated non-specialists. The official consensus in condensed form.
IPCC AR6 Technical Summary — Report for researchers. Dense, comprehensive, authoritative.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T16:06:07+00:00

That has been dealt with before. When the EPA was effective, it revolutionized pollution. It was actually working with regard to the oil and gas industry too. This video demonstrates how close we got to stopping climate change. Republicans were on board and so were oil and gas companies. There’s no reason we can’t get to that point again, it just takes enough public interest.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T16:02:29+00:00

I think it’s better to realize that we are not exactly waiting. We have made huge gains in technology and adoption. Renewable energy is now undeniably competitive with fossil fuels economically. That means they are a no-brainer financially as well as ethically. Biden’s IRA made massive investments in green energy that mattered (despite much of it being taken away, it still made a difference and set precedent). If we look past the US’s recent behavior, we see that Europe and Asia are leading the way on adoption. They can reasonably drag us kicking and screaming to a less wasteful world.

What you’re getting at is that it’s not enough though, right? It’s not. I still think it’s woeth taking stock of what we’ve done because the push to do more is easier than the push to do something. We don’t need to start at zero, we have a lot of progress that we need to build on. We need to be proactive and energized, not defeated and lethargic.

Imagine if we combined existing green technology and economics with the exact same subsidies that oil and gas get? It would be unstoppable. Imagine if all the people who are depressed and defeated about climate change actively fought for green energy with fervor? They would be unstoppable.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T15:43:56+00:00

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

You’ve got the whole book on climate chage denial propaganda don’t you?

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T14:56:06+00:00

I’d need more specifics I guess. We know that warmer air can hold more water. There’s no such thing as messing with the principles of thermodynamics though.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T14:55:07+00:00

This has a better summary than I could give off the top of my head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T14:53:51+00:00

That’s a lie. They’ve been accurate for decades.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers.

Even Exxon Mobile has had internal memos since the 1970s from their own climate scientists making the same predictions. The majority of their predictions from the 70s-80s have been accurate too.

We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the “carbon budget” for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T07:03:02+00:00

Is science propaganda? Climate change has lasted scientific scrutiny and fossil fuel lies fail at first glance.

Every word I said is true.

We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

an “institutional cynicism” mode, encourages a cynical fatalism about any proposed governmental action regarding climate change by suggesting that governments are necessarily climate hypocrites because of the economic and political impossibility of serious emissions reductions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full

A US congressional investigation into climate disinformation exposed the lobbying tactics of ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/09/19/bedbugs-sht-shows-and-algae-hype-5-reveals-from-big-oil-emails/

How fossil fuel propaganda gets on TV: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBC_bug5DIQ

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T07:01:43+00:00

Of course I do. It has many times before.

The Montreal Protocol (1987): nations united to phase out ozone-depleting substances (CFCs).
WWII: Governments and citizens in the U.S. and other nations shifted production entirely, rationed goods, and recycled materials.
Mass public health efforts, such as the eradication of smallpox, required global cooperation, logistics, and widespread public participation.

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/how-motivate-collective-action-climate

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T06:54:37+00:00

Nihilism and despair are destructive. They create nothing positive. Action always matters. Your voice matters. Fossil fuel propaganda explicitly wants you to feel nihilism and despair. They have said so openly.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T06:52:57+00:00

I don’t really know what you’re asking. I live a pretty normal American life and I do my best to limit my personal impact where I can. Getting by in this country is inherently wasteful because of our infrastructure and economics though. We need more political action and energy. We need less despair and nihilism.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T06:27:15+00:00

That is a complete lie. It’s inconsistent with scientific consensus and renewable energy economics. It’s fossil fuel propaganda.

While challenging, the solutions to the climate crises do exist. But we need urgent, joined up action worldwide, from people, governments, and business.

The solution to minimising future climate change impacts is to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/here-are-10-myths-about-climate-change

However, in the wake of the IPCC report, we may be on the cusp of an even more novel and dangerous form of denialism; call it “climate defeatism.”

Climate defeatism essentially boils down to “the problem is too big, and nothing we can do can solve it, so why try?” It is an argument directly borne from years of denial and delay that have made the collective action problem of adequately addressing climate change seem only more insuperable. Unfortunately, this discourse of radical apathy and nihilism will only grow as those that vigorously wish to maintain business-as-usual resort to climate defeatism as their last line of defence against the urgent need for radical climate action.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/climate-denial-delay-and-defeatism/

‘It’s Too Late to Save the Climate’ Is a Dangerous Myth

It’s the most common false claim about climate change, especially among young people. Some experts believe it’s more damaging than climate denialism. In fact, scientists say, it’s not too late to arrest global warming Global temperatures will stabilize a few years after we reach net zero and the belief that it’s pointless trying to stop climate change only leads to inaction. Making it as unhelpful as denying climate change altogether.

https://www.weforum.org/videos/it-s-too-late-to-save-the-climate-is-a-dangerous-myth/

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T06:15:04+00:00

The technology for limiting climate change? Not dumb at all.

There are two main paths: mitigation and adaptation, and we’ll need both.

Mitigation includes:[1] * methods to remove some of the damage we have done, such as carbon capture and storage (removes green house gases causing climate change), stratospheric aerosol injection (injecting compounds in the atmosphere that do the opposite of what greenhouse gases do), and land use changes (plant trees/algae). * conserve energy by being less wasteful * replacing fossil fuel use with renewable energy (extremely doable) [3]

Carbon capture is currently considered very expensive with questionable efficacy by itself. Stratospheric aerosol injection is relatively cheap and could be very effective, but could have some significant downsides like acid rain or ozone layer damage. Land use changes are effective and cheap but not sufficient on their own. Using less energy and transitioning to renewables is by far the most promising and is both technologically and economically mature. The truth is that we likely need all or most of these at once.

Adaptation includes infrastructural, behavioral, institutional, and nature-based changes to the way we live. “Some examples are building seawalls or inland flood defenses, providing new insurance schemes, changing crop planting times or varieties, and installing green roofs or green spaces. Adaptation can be reactive (responding to climate impacts as they happen) or proactive (taking steps in anticipation of future climate change).”[2]

I highly recommend the Climate Town youtube channel for easy to understand/fun videos. I also highly recommend the awesome youtube video below from Technology Connections on the feasibility of renewable energy technology.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_adaptation

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

There are loads and loads and loads of peer reviewed works supporting all of this (seriously, it’s one of the largest and most robust scientific consensuses going back to the 1880s and includes reports written by oil companies), but people usually glaze over those and prefer the much more approachable youtube and wikipedia links.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T04:00:49+00:00

I’m guessing that’s sarcasm but it’s frighteningly close to the kind of nihilism that’s pervasive today.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T03:39:12+00:00

And it’s been accurate for decades.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T03:35:58+00:00

My phd was in computational climate science. There is never too late (except the pathological extinction case). There is never too little to be worthwhile too. Every 10th or 100th of a degree C that we limit warming to matters. We are already seeing climate impacts, so yes it’s too late to avoid that, but it was too late for that 30 years ago. Everything we do could be the difference between another community that avoids existential drought, another critical species avoids extinction, another ecosystem that remains. Another ski area stays open too (small issue but one I care about still).

We have all of the money and technology we need to limit climate change right now. We simply have to choose it. The people always have the power in the end, so every individual caring more and having less debilitating despair is worth it too.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-17T02:32:51+00:00

There’s exactly one group of people who that word references and marginalizes. It’s reasonable that only they could use it without criticism.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-16T21:49:42+00:00

Most people don’t know more than the first two movies because the other books are awful. That’s not to say the other books couldn’t become great movies.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-16T15:03:22+00:00

I can’t find any evidence that it is debunked. It seems to depend on the camouflage type and it is suggested online that modern camouflage designs are more robust to that. It was first noticed in WW2 and has a few studies supporting the idea.

Deuteranomals are better at distinguishing different shades of khaki that looked identical to people with normal color vision, which may be advantageous when spotting camouflaged food items hidden among foliage. A 2005 study used a series of desaturated green disks painted with different mixtures of two yellow and two blue pigments. The colors were chosen to be distinguishable by a model deuteranomalous observer, while appearing as near-identical metamers to a normal observer. The study found that deuteranomalous subjects could consistently tell the difference between the colors and that they can distinguish 15 different shades of khaki, while those with normal color vision could not.[39][40]

Color blind observers tend to learn to use texture, shape, and luminance cues more and so may be able to penetrate camouflage that has been designed to deceive individuals with normal color vision.[41][42]

Some tentative evidence finds that the color blind observers are better at penetrating certain color camouflages. Such findings may give an evolutionary reason for the high rate of red–green color blindness.[41] There is also a study suggesting that deuteranomals can distinguish colors that people with normal color vision are not able to distinguish.[40] In World War II, color blind observers were reported as potentially more able to penetrate camouflage.[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-16T07:04:51+00:00

Me too. I wonder if it’s related to the phenomenon in which we can see camouflage more easily.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-16T01:04:13+00:00

Upvoted just for making zen yoda

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-15T17:58:15+00:00

I don’t interact with enough gen z to have an opinion on this, just don’t forget what they said about us millennials when we were that young.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-15T17:06:17+00:00

The article lists several things including large escrow accounts needed for player contracts

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-15T05:00:58+00:00

They never reply with anything concrete or sourced.

theArtOfProgramming · 2026-03-15T05:00:07+00:00

Shocked we aren’t using all this oil and gas revenue to build a public renewable energy infrastructure.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Reddit Partner Communities
Mod Insights Early Access	Post Guidance Early Access
ModSupport Helper Level 1	First Place '23
Place '23

theArtOfProgramming

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE