6 ms·

Sometimes I feel I am the only one sceptical of the politics and alarmism surrounding climate change. I am Not saying I'm skeptical that it is real (or to be mo

Sometimes I feel I am the only one sceptical of the politics and alarmism surrounding climate change. I am Not saying I'm skeptical that it is real (or to be more appropriately scientific, that the evidence suggests the observed increase in CO2 and temperature most likely is caused by emissions), but I'm saying the politics are more complex than that. I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve. Global warming activism also bothers me in some ways. Snobs have an absolute affinity for it, and it seems in this cause it's easy to create an aura of good will without actually having to follow-up and do anything tangible to benefit other people. Think: Buying hybrid cars that pollute more than my simple Honda. Preaching about the importance of action on this topic is also rather convenient: you don't appear to actually have to take any action. Preach about the problems of homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare? There are obvious ways to actually spend your time helping people who are victims there. Want to hold the moral superiority card with as little effort as possible? It's super convenient. There's also the the west's party line to the rest of the world: We can afford clean energy now, and of course we want it; but even though other nations can't afford it, they're now declared immoral for not embracing it. None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for question.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
> I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve. Cool, like what? > None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for question. I agree. But that doesn't make it less of an issue. And cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't seem like a useful solution, so what's the answer?
- whatshisface 10y ago
  >Cool, like what? Regular environmental damage, for one. We still have lots of forest-burning and toxic chemical exposure around the world. In fact, a major extinction is going on in the Amazon right now because of deforestation. We could also throw in public health crises like heart disease and diabetes - like climate, we may be able to improve those by changing our behavior. It is absolutely the case the case that present human and environmental health is under greatest assault by things other than climate. This is not to make climate less, but to point out that other problems loom a little larger than most people think.
  - lancewiggs 10y ago
    Deforestation is a climate change problem as well as a local ecosystem problem. Solve for both. Life expectancies have risen by a ridiculous amount over the last 150 years. Wide-spread diabetes is a symptom of a wealthy society that is over-indulging - solve for that problem, and, you guessed it, climate change is assisted too. Climate change can destroy our global ecosystem - the one that sustains all life. While these other things may be more urgent, nothing (aside from a large object in space heading to Earth) has quote the same existential gravitas.
    - briandear 10y ago
      So remove the wealth and thus limit over indulging? Ok, you first.
      - Ensorceled 10y ago
        This comment doesn't even make sense. A wealthy society over-indulging doesn't need it's wealth curtailed in order to stop over-indulging and the comment you replied to didn't imply that it did.
  - the8472 10y ago
    We only got one global atmosphere but lots of hearts and forests. It is a single point of failure. And fighting some of those things, like pollution from coal plants, also goes hand in hand with reducing CO2 emissions.
sd8f9iu 10y ago
1. The big fear with climate change is that it's irreversible. That is not the case with the other problems you mention. 2. Climate change is predicted to cause food supply problems for hundreds of millions of people, trillions of dollars of economic damage, and rising sea levels that flood coastal cities. I don't see how the other problems you mention are more dire. 3. The problems you mention – homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare – are problems that affect us on a domestic level. Climate change disproportionately affects poor people in other countries, yet the CO2 in our atmosphere has been disproportionately created by wealthy countries. How is addressing this snobby? 4. True climate change action would require upending the entire energy sector of the economy. How would this be not taking any action? Just because the action hasn't taken place yet doesn't mean the preaching should stop. I find climate change opposition adopts the following trajectory: 1. It's not real. 2. Ok, but humans aren't causing it. 3. Ok, but it's not worth solving. Your response is currently on step 3, and I don't see the logic behind it.
- briandear 10y ago
  I've been hearing about the sky falling because of climate change most of my life. Yet in the 1970s it was global cooling. The easiest way to convince someone of a particular 'danger' is to promise world-ending catastrophe. The science was 'settled' on Eugenics during the early 20th century as well and we saw how that turned out. There's no mention of any positive effects of global warming. The climate is certainly changing.. But then again it has always changed and the world will adapt and evolve as it always has. When Leonardo DiCaprio gives up a private jet for a city bus, then maybe I'll start to worry. The science has been misappropriated by anti-capitalist activists. Forgive me for not trusting the anti-capitalist cabal that share more values with Lenin than with Milton Friedman.
  - FuNe 10y ago
    "The science has been misappropriated by anti-capitalist activists." That is an undeniable fact - last time I entered the local university I needed to fist-bump a guy like Che, chant a few slogans, spit on a Friedman picture and show latest Naomi Klein book at the fraternity doormen. Oh god it was awful.
briandear 10y ago
My problem is that the climate change activism crowd have admitted that the benefit of climate change regulation is income redistribution and effectively the destruction of capitalism. The climate change movement started gaining stream after the Soviet Union collapsed. I am very skeptical of climate activists with their almost identical similarity to the pro-Soviet propagandists from the 1980s. "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.. ..One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.." --Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007
- the8472 10y ago
  To some extent government is always income redistribution. Even a flat tax rate still takes more money from the rich, in absolute amounts, and uses it to build things and provide services that benefit everyone. So unless you think all governments should cease to exist you indirectly agree to some level of income redistribution already. And it's not like subsidizing clean energy infrastructure in developing countries would magically equalize everyone's living standards like communism claimed to do. So it's still fairly limited redistribution. So where exactly is the problem? You're not saying any more than "fixing the problem will take some money that has to be invested globally, not just locally".
  - briandear 10y ago
    That's not my point. My point is that climate change policy isn't about climate change, thus I am skeptical about climate change activists because their goal isn't climate, but redistribution. Essentially, they're lying.
    - the8472 10y ago
      All they're saying is that it'll take more than just a bit of regulating emissions. If anything they're being honest. You're confusing goals and solutions here.
Pxtl 10y ago
The alarmism comes from reputable scientific research saying that the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy. The politics come from the fact that in many places, everybody but the strongly left have decided they don't give a crap, so many solutions you hear about are intertwined with left-wing politics. I bike to work and I eat vegetarian. I'm not impressed with the rationalizations people come up with for doing nothing.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >The alarmism comes from reputable scientific research saying that the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy. Just to be clear, the reputable scientific research is around the issue of climate change's impact on the environment, not on the effects to society. In other words, what that statement means is that we are capable of using the scientific method to make reliable predictions about how much the earth's temperature will rise, how much ocean levels will rise, etc. The problem I see here is that the 'reputable scientific research' is being stretched to include outcomes to society: 'reputable scientific research says the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy.' That is not science: no one has a scientific experiment that can scientifically prove how many people will die or experience hardship due to climate change, let alone that outcome is terrifying catastrophe. By the way, what is 'terrifying catastrophe?' We can only produce simulations, models, guesses and conjecture, all of which are notoriously fallible devices, to predict what will happen. Look, and I'm in agreement that the outcome of not acting on climate change will probably be terrible. My post clearly lays out that I am an advocate of climate change progress. The extreme alarmism is not an indisputable part of the science, it is an indisputable part of the politics. The is something which has become worth questioning. There are a lot of people shouting up and down about climate change without doing anything serious. Some of the most capable to help others are buying into a market of products and services that appear to have questionable benefit to human welfare. For example, hybrid cars that weigh over 2 tons and get 20mpg. Those investments in extremely marginal improvements in CO2 emissions, without directing effort to make improvements in other peoples lives in very obvious, relatively low-cost, and direct ways, especially in their communities, calls into question the value of the political movements impact on our resource allocation: is $20,000 better spent on a hybrid powertrain that improves fuel economy marginally on an over-bloated car, or is it better spent on other methods of saving lives, improving education, civil rights, individual freedoms, access to food and healthcare? We do have the capability to make the world a better place, and there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit as a means to that end. For example, we live in a world where more than enough food is produced to feed everyone, yet malnutrition is still a problem. Some estimate enough food is currently produced to feed the world twice over. What I want to say is: it is worth questioning the politics. The climate change movement has become so political, so important and so untouchable of questioning that it raises concerns. Why is it worth questioning the politics. One reason: are we spending our resources efficiently? I don't think we are. I commend you for your efforts. For a period, I also biked to work and ate vegetarian.
lubesGordi 10y ago
You can thank Gore and his messianic ego for completely politicizing climate change.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

> I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve. Cool, like what? > None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for question. I agree. But that doesn't make it less of an issue. And cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't seem like a useful solution, so what's the answer?

whatshisface 10y ago
>Cool, like what? Regular environmental damage, for one. We still have lots of forest-burning and toxic chemical exposure around the world. In fact, a major extinction is going on in the Amazon right now because of deforestation. We could also throw in public health crises like heart disease and diabetes - like climate, we may be able to improve those by changing our behavior. It is absolutely the case the case that present human and environmental health is under greatest assault by things other than climate. This is not to make climate less, but to point out that other problems loom a little larger than most people think.
- lancewiggs 10y ago
  Deforestation is a climate change problem as well as a local ecosystem problem. Solve for both. Life expectancies have risen by a ridiculous amount over the last 150 years. Wide-spread diabetes is a symptom of a wealthy society that is over-indulging - solve for that problem, and, you guessed it, climate change is assisted too. Climate change can destroy our global ecosystem - the one that sustains all life. While these other things may be more urgent, nothing (aside from a large object in space heading to Earth) has quote the same existential gravitas.
  - briandear 10y ago
    So remove the wealth and thus limit over indulging? Ok, you first.
    - Ensorceled 10y ago
      This comment doesn't even make sense. A wealthy society over-indulging doesn't need it's wealth curtailed in order to stop over-indulging and the comment you replied to didn't imply that it did.
- the8472 10y ago
  We only got one global atmosphere but lots of hearts and forests. It is a single point of failure. And fighting some of those things, like pollution from coal plants, also goes hand in hand with reducing CO2 emissions.

sd8f9iu 10y ago

1. The big fear with climate change is that it's irreversible. That is not the case with the other problems you mention. 2. Climate change is predicted to cause food supply problems for hundreds of millions of people, trillions of dollars of economic damage, and rising sea levels that flood coastal cities. I don't see how the other problems you mention are more dire. 3. The problems you mention – homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare – are problems that affect us on a domestic level. Climate change disproportionately affects poor people in other countries, yet the CO2 in our atmosphere has been disproportionately created by wealthy countries. How is addressing this snobby? 4. True climate change action would require upending the entire energy sector of the economy. How would this be not taking any action? Just because the action hasn't taken place yet doesn't mean the preaching should stop. I find climate change opposition adopts the following trajectory: 1. It's not real. 2. Ok, but humans aren't causing it. 3. Ok, but it's not worth solving. Your response is currently on step 3, and I don't see the logic behind it.

briandear 10y ago
I've been hearing about the sky falling because of climate change most of my life. Yet in the 1970s it was global cooling. The easiest way to convince someone of a particular 'danger' is to promise world-ending catastrophe. The science was 'settled' on Eugenics during the early 20th century as well and we saw how that turned out. There's no mention of any positive effects of global warming. The climate is certainly changing.. But then again it has always changed and the world will adapt and evolve as it always has. When Leonardo DiCaprio gives up a private jet for a city bus, then maybe I'll start to worry. The science has been misappropriated by anti-capitalist activists. Forgive me for not trusting the anti-capitalist cabal that share more values with Lenin than with Milton Friedman.
- FuNe 10y ago
  "The science has been misappropriated by anti-capitalist activists." That is an undeniable fact - last time I entered the local university I needed to fist-bump a guy like Che, chant a few slogans, spit on a Friedman picture and show latest Naomi Klein book at the fraternity doormen. Oh god it was awful.

briandear 10y ago

My problem is that the climate change activism crowd have admitted that the benefit of climate change regulation is income redistribution and effectively the destruction of capitalism. The climate change movement started gaining stream after the Soviet Union collapsed. I am very skeptical of climate activists with their almost identical similarity to the pro-Soviet propagandists from the 1980s. "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.. ..One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.." --Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

the8472 10y ago
To some extent government is always income redistribution. Even a flat tax rate still takes more money from the rich, in absolute amounts, and uses it to build things and provide services that benefit everyone. So unless you think all governments should cease to exist you indirectly agree to some level of income redistribution already. And it's not like subsidizing clean energy infrastructure in developing countries would magically equalize everyone's living standards like communism claimed to do. So it's still fairly limited redistribution. So where exactly is the problem? You're not saying any more than "fixing the problem will take some money that has to be invested globally, not just locally".
- briandear 10y ago
  That's not my point. My point is that climate change policy isn't about climate change, thus I am skeptical about climate change activists because their goal isn't climate, but redistribution. Essentially, they're lying.
  - the8472 10y ago
    All they're saying is that it'll take more than just a bit of regulating emissions. If anything they're being honest. You're confusing goals and solutions here.

Pxtl 10y ago

The alarmism comes from reputable scientific research saying that the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy. The politics come from the fact that in many places, everybody but the strongly left have decided they don't give a crap, so many solutions you hear about are intertwined with left-wing politics. I bike to work and I eat vegetarian. I'm not impressed with the rationalizations people come up with for doing nothing.

wallace_f 10y ago
>The alarmism comes from reputable scientific research saying that the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy. Just to be clear, the reputable scientific research is around the issue of climate change's impact on the environment, not on the effects to society. In other words, what that statement means is that we are capable of using the scientific method to make reliable predictions about how much the earth's temperature will rise, how much ocean levels will rise, etc. The problem I see here is that the 'reputable scientific research' is being stretched to include outcomes to society: 'reputable scientific research says the outcome will be terrifying catastrophy.' That is not science: no one has a scientific experiment that can scientifically prove how many people will die or experience hardship due to climate change, let alone that outcome is terrifying catastrophe. By the way, what is 'terrifying catastrophe?' We can only produce simulations, models, guesses and conjecture, all of which are notoriously fallible devices, to predict what will happen. Look, and I'm in agreement that the outcome of not acting on climate change will probably be terrible. My post clearly lays out that I am an advocate of climate change progress. The extreme alarmism is not an indisputable part of the science, it is an indisputable part of the politics. The is something which has become worth questioning. There are a lot of people shouting up and down about climate change without doing anything serious. Some of the most capable to help others are buying into a market of products and services that appear to have questionable benefit to human welfare. For example, hybrid cars that weigh over 2 tons and get 20mpg. Those investments in extremely marginal improvements in CO2 emissions, without directing effort to make improvements in other peoples lives in very obvious, relatively low-cost, and direct ways, especially in their communities, calls into question the value of the political movements impact on our resource allocation: is $20,000 better spent on a hybrid powertrain that improves fuel economy marginally on an over-bloated car, or is it better spent on other methods of saving lives, improving education, civil rights, individual freedoms, access to food and healthcare? We do have the capability to make the world a better place, and there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit as a means to that end. For example, we live in a world where more than enough food is produced to feed everyone, yet malnutrition is still a problem. Some estimate enough food is currently produced to feed the world twice over. What I want to say is: it is worth questioning the politics. The climate change movement has become so political, so important and so untouchable of questioning that it raises concerns. Why is it worth questioning the politics. One reason: are we spending our resources efficiently? I don't think we are. I commend you for your efforts. For a period, I also biked to work and ate vegetarian.

lubesGordi 10y ago

You can thank Gore and his messianic ego for completely politicizing climate change.