4 ms·
Well, I'm going to approach this from the political angle instead of the scientific angle, because I have my doubts about the accuracy of modern climate models.
by oconnore 17y ago
Well, I'm going to approach this from the political angle instead of the scientific angle, because I have my doubts about the accuracy of modern climate models. The Earth is really complex, and while single float thermodynamics equations recalculated on a grid map of the world are probably pretty close to reality, I have yet to see any reason why a few degrees error per century is unthinkable for these computer models.
That said, I have seen two political motions within AGW. One, to motivate people to consume less, to accept a reduction in their standard of living. Two, to motivate people to confront and resolve an issue in a sensible way with modern technologies. The latter actually makes sense, AGW or not, unless you really do like breathing exhaust fumes; unfortunately the former seems more common, and less acceptable.
- madair 17y agoRegarding motivating people to consume less, maybe there are some people for whom this is the equivalent of a blue law (i.e. don't drink alcohol on Sunday and you'll be a 'better' person), but that's really not the common case. The motivation is sustainability. Sure some people really don't care whether this level of consumption is sustainable on an equitable basis worldwide, and are willing to use military might to hold that position, and you may be one of those people, but sustainability is the basis for these considerations, not random do-gooder pronouncements.
- tedunangst 17y agoBut the Copenhagen Climate Summit/Council/Conference was not called the Copenhagen Sustainability Summit. I think some people are suspicious of the larger green movement because it seems so shifty. Basically the conversation between "earthers" and "doubters" has been going like this: Earther: global warming is bad. Doubter: if the planet is warming, why is it so cold? Earther: actually it's climate change. Doubter: what's so bad about changing climates? Earther: actually it's about sustainability. The message needs to be consistent and clear. Snapshot of earther and doubter sentiments in time: 1970 Earther: Split wood, not atoms. 1970 Doubter: I like big cars. 1980 Earther: There will be no oil in 20 years. 1980 Doubter: I like semi-big cars. 2000 Earther: There will be no oil in 20 years. 2000 Doubter: I like big cars. 2010 Earther: Split atoms, save the trees. 2010 Doubter: I like semi-big cars.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- madair 17y agoSelf-evident straw men get votes here on HN, huh. [Edit:] I guess your (single) point which people may be voting on that's not a straw man there is that the larger green movement is "shifty". Because your point on "consistent and clear" is based completely on a made up discussion between what sounds like 3rd graders (or politicians)
- tedunangst 17y agoIf you don't think that conversation is a representative simplification, get out and talk to some more people. :)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nagrom 17y ago''Because your point on "consistent and clear" is based completely on a made up discussion between what sounds like 3rd graders (or politicians)'' Unfortunately, it's the politicians that are making the decisions - and a lot of the interest in current affairs from the general public is around the level of the third grade. Look at the writing standards in many tabloid newspapers for evidence of that. Without spending an awful lot of time examining the data (which I am not willing to do), I cannot see a way of having a view on AGW. The entire issue is so politicised and so tribal (with astonishingly naive, provably false claims from both sides of the argument) that I've given up caring. I just don't have the time or energy to make a sound judgment precisely because of the tone of the debate.
- madair 17y agoI agree, voter apathy due to political shenanigans is a huge problem. People just disengage from the process. Straw man arguments don't fix it, instead they perpetuate the same useless bickering. Trumpeting dishonest scientists or shifty politicians without seeming interest in rising above their quality of debate is just more of the political game.
- cabalamat 17y ago> One, to motivate people to consume less, to accept a reduction in their standard of living. While I agree with your point that some people do argue in favour of ACC for the reason you've given, I'd point out that consuming less doesn't mean a lower standard of living. For example, per capita oil consumption is lower now than it was during the 1970s, yet per capita GDP is a lot higher. So we're doing more with less.
- oconnore 17y agoI suppose I wasn't clear. A drop in raw material consumption is not a bad thing, as long as it is accompanied by an increase in material efficiency to match it. For example, we may be buying less gas at the pumps, but that's just because our cars have improved. This did not effect our standard of living, because we still have the same individual mobility.
- MaysonL 17y agoa few degrees error per century is unthinkable for these computer models. Yes, but in which direction? The bigger the error bar, the greater the danger of a really bad climate result.
- lutorm 17y agoWhile I'm not sure I am arguing for a reduction in standard of living, my question is: would you be willing to accept a reduction in standard of living if it were to avoid an even larger reduction for your children and grandchildren? In many cases (not climate change so much, but other supposed "reductions" of standard of living) it's also a matter of weighing things like "can I eat fish that I pull out of a lake and exercise without getting an asthma attack?" which are normally not taken into account in such statistics.