4 ms·

I care about the Earth and climate change. However I think those of us with rational, logical minds might have reservations about a group of scientists who can

by saluki 11y ago

I care about the Earth and climate change. However I think those of us with rational, logical minds might have reservations about a group of scientists who can be so sure that the earth is warming and that human activities are the definite cause of it. So most of us might be a little quiet on the issue of climate change since we're not positive that human activity is definitely the cause of it and temperatures are definitely going to rise 2 degrees (C) causing all kinds of calamaties. I think this explains why you don't wee more votes, comments and tweets about it from engineers/developers. I think we should definitely reduce emissions, I think the policies being pursued are justified and smart to do just in case this theory is accurate. My problem is scientists saying that without doubt human activities are definitely causing the global temperatures to rise. At this point in time with the data we have how can we be sure. It needs more study/data. I'm definitely not saying that's an excuse for inaction. Reduce emissions now just be careful about over stating what we really know for sure. I think a more scientific approach would be to say that our data is pointing in that direction we need to reduce emissions now just in case, here are our finding and our data. We welcome other theories and review of our data and we are going to collect more and more data to track this trend and determine if our theory is accurate. The Earth goes through climate cycles/changes over time. Ice Ages, warm periods, little ice age, etc. And all of these changes/cycles previously were independent of humans or human activity. I'm not saying humans are not the cause of it, I'm just saying lets hold off on saying they definitely are, collect more data/and more accurate data, be open with the data and work together, be open to new theories, then determine what is really happening while reducing emissions at the same time. Also there is a possible solar minimum coming that might cause a 30 to 40 year little ice age. Maybe that will give us some time to develop some break through technologies that nearly eliminates the need for using fossil fuels while avoiding the predictions of increased hurricanes, sea levels rising, etc if temperatures would rise. Most of all improve, perfect and invent green energy sources so we can eliminate most emissions. The Earth is amazing, lets take care of it.

mijustin 11y ago
Really appreciate this thoughtful response (and the respectful tone). Thank you!
- tdb7893 11y ago
  The tone is nice but I don't think he is right about the science of it. For example he talks about how more data should be gathered about this but climate change has been in the public eye for more than a decade now so there's tons of data on it so this sort of hedging of the bets isn't necessary anymore. This paragraph is a good example of the problem here: > However I think those of us with rational, logical minds might have reservations about a group of scientists who can be so sure that the earth is warming and that human activities are the definite cause of it. This person is probably a computer scientist and yet they don't trust a "group of scientists" which I am assuming by context to be climate scientists, who are literally the experts in the field he is talking about
shoo 11y ago
We're not in the luxurious position of having an arbitrary amount of time and resources to spend on identifying with absolute certainty what is happening. This is reality, not the platonic realm of mathematics, and there's severe opportunity costs to sitting around and twiddling our thumbs [1]. We'll highly likely doom billions of people to starve or drown or die in resource wars, and force another 30% or so of species into extinction, and by the time this is all very obvious there will be no options left to change course, and we'll be committed for the next few centuries. I agree with you to some degree, but I am not sure it is helpful to even talk like this at this point in time. It's basically a war of ideology -- we can change if enough of us want to change, we're not reliant on technical progress to react in time, there just has to be enough willpower from the population to force change. We are highly confident that we're causing it. Let's not even talk about things like blame or ethics or morality, if that's not a helpful way of thinking. Let's be coldly pragmatic. The predicted consequences of not taking appropriate preventative actions are catastrophic. The predicted consequences of taking appropriate preventative measures are merely quite unpleasant. So we should do something about it, immediately. We've had the last 45 years for analysis. Sure, more research is a great idea, but the action / analysis ratio should be tipped to about 99% action and 1% analysis at this point. To end on a positive note, German citizens have made good progress on taking control of their local government, de-privatised their local energy production, and pushing a shift toward renewable energy. It provides an example that genuine change can be made at the local level, even when higher levels of government aren't taking sufficient action. In turn, then that puts pressure on higher levels of government, and the rest of society, and slowly we make progress [1] - http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/environment/polyp_cartoon_global_warming_flood_rising_sea_level.jpg http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/environment/polyp_cartoon_globa...

by saluki 11y ago

mijustin 11y ago

Really appreciate this thoughtful response (and the respectful tone). Thank you!

tdb7893 11y ago
The tone is nice but I don't think he is right about the science of it. For example he talks about how more data should be gathered about this but climate change has been in the public eye for more than a decade now so there's tons of data on it so this sort of hedging of the bets isn't necessary anymore. This paragraph is a good example of the problem here: > However I think those of us with rational, logical minds might have reservations about a group of scientists who can be so sure that the earth is warming and that human activities are the definite cause of it. This person is probably a computer scientist and yet they don't trust a "group of scientists" which I am assuming by context to be climate scientists, who are literally the experts in the field he is talking about

shoo 11y ago

We're not in the luxurious position of having an arbitrary amount of time and resources to spend on identifying with absolute certainty what is happening. This is reality, not the platonic realm of mathematics, and there's severe opportunity costs to sitting around and twiddling our thumbs [1]. We'll highly likely doom billions of people to starve or drown or die in resource wars, and force another 30% or so of species into extinction, and by the time this is all very obvious there will be no options left to change course, and we'll be committed for the next few centuries. I agree with you to some degree, but I am not sure it is helpful to even talk like this at this point in time. It's basically a war of ideology -- we can change if enough of us want to change, we're not reliant on technical progress to react in time, there just has to be enough willpower from the population to force change. We are highly confident that we're causing it. Let's not even talk about things like blame or ethics or morality, if that's not a helpful way of thinking. Let's be coldly pragmatic. The predicted consequences of not taking appropriate preventative actions are catastrophic. The predicted consequences of taking appropriate preventative measures are merely quite unpleasant. So we should do something about it, immediately. We've had the last 45 years for analysis. Sure, more research is a great idea, but the action / analysis ratio should be tipped to about 99% action and 1% analysis at this point. To end on a positive note, German citizens have made good progress on taking control of their local government, de-privatised their local energy production, and pushing a shift toward renewable energy. It provides an example that genuine change can be made at the local level, even when higher levels of government aren't taking sufficient action. In turn, then that puts pressure on higher levels of government, and the rest of society, and slowly we make progress [1] - http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/environment/polyp_cartoon_global_warming_flood_rising_sea_level.jpg http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/environment/polyp_cartoon_globa...