4 ms·

> cutting CO2 emissions will make the damage much less severe What does that actually mean? The best models of a few years ago predicted huge increases in the

> cutting CO2 emissions will make the damage much less severe What does that actually mean? The best models of a few years ago predicted huge increases in the loss of life due to climate change by today, yet we continue to see a decrease in climate-related deaths (thanks to technology that helps people adapt to climate rather than the other way around). We've been wrong, not just in scale, but in the direction of the trend that (at least in my opinion) matters most. So if there is a warming trend, how much do you really think we can postpone or alleviate its effects by driving a Prius and using recycled shopping bags - in terms of human lives saved? Even under the completely unrealistic, hypothetical assumption that we could get every country on earth to make it priority #1, how does that affect the overall picture? Do you think, possibly, that kind of focus/priority might actually be a net loss if we sacrifice innovation that saves lives in the face of any climate change (as we do now) for a drop-in-the-bucket-scale difference in an otherwise unavoidable trend?

mikeash 10y ago
Which models predicted a huge loss of life due to climate change by today? The technology for adapting to climate has been around for decades, so I'm skeptical that some change there has made a difference. Your mention of "recycled shopping bags" as if it had anything to do with climate change makes me suspect that you're not being entirely sincere here.
zbyte64 10y ago
You are not wrong, simply driving a Prius won't save the world. If however we start including the actual costs to society in the cost of petro then you won't need to encourage people to drive hybrids or recycle. I am not so sure that the price of petro is negatively tied to innovation, or at least the innovations needed to mitigate global warming.
woodandsteel 10y ago
It just occurred to me that pro-fossil fuel trolls might realize they are losing the argument that there is no anthropocentric global climate change, and instead decide fight government regulations by arguing it is out of control and so there is no point in trying to stop it.
- mikeash 10y ago
  In my experience, the "skeptic" side transitions fairly freely between "the world isn't warming," "the warming is natural," and "the warming is anthropogenic but beneficial" based on whatever best fits the argument at any given moment. Adding in "the warming is anthropogenic and harmful but unstoppable" wouldn't be much of a change.
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  I'm hardly a "pro-fossil fuel troll" as you seem to imply, though I do think it's odd that you'd resort to framing someone with opposing views as "losing [an] argument" when scientifically speaking, facts should speak for themselves - no arguments needed. The facts relating to AGW are far from clear. Anyone telling you otherwise is either funded by powerful political agendas, or too ignorant to recognize the manipulation happening in the media. There are very legitimate reasons to support the use of fossil fuels and to consider the cost - in human lives - of trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. To ignore that side of the debate is simply irresponsible. They certainly aren't free from negative consequences, but the negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuel use are far greater. Lastly, pointing out additional flaws in the AGW narrative is not an indication of "losing an argument" or subsequently deciding to fight another. I raised this particular point to help illustrate the fact that even if you do happen to subscribe to the idea of AGW, if you follow that idea to its logical conclusion, you're still no better off in terms of actually fixing anything. It's just one more clue that the whole AGW ideology serves a hidden political purpose. In my experience, ideological flaws tend to travel in pairs - or in this case, herds. I bet it feels like you're doing the world a favor by perpetuating the flawed idea that climate change and fossil fuels are the most important problems of our time, but unless you're actually willing to give up everything that fossil fuels do for us (FYI, that includes pretty much all the conveniences of modern civilized living), then that's a pretty hypocritical position to take. Worst of all, the anti-fossil-fuel agenda ends up hurting the people who stand to gain the most from industrial progress - especially those in developing countries.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    I think this argument is very shallow at best. You seem to be claiming that the choice is either "use all fossil fuels forever" or "give up all fossil fuels immediately". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that replacing any fossil fuel tech you name with an equivalent one that doesn't produce CO2 is the very definition of "advancing the tech". The argument for clean energy is basically that we need to be doing as much as we can to advance energy technology as quickly as possible no matter how it affects legacy industry, like fossil fuels. The human costs from ditching these legacy fuels are real, but rate very low compared to the cost to future humanity. There really is no argument about what we should be doing, but rather how quickly we can and how much effort is needed.

mikeash 10y ago

Which models predicted a huge loss of life due to climate change by today? The technology for adapting to climate has been around for decades, so I'm skeptical that some change there has made a difference. Your mention of "recycled shopping bags" as if it had anything to do with climate change makes me suspect that you're not being entirely sincere here.

zbyte64 10y ago

You are not wrong, simply driving a Prius won't save the world. If however we start including the actual costs to society in the cost of petro then you won't need to encourage people to drive hybrids or recycle. I am not so sure that the price of petro is negatively tied to innovation, or at least the innovations needed to mitigate global warming.

woodandsteel 10y ago

It just occurred to me that pro-fossil fuel trolls might realize they are losing the argument that there is no anthropocentric global climate change, and instead decide fight government regulations by arguing it is out of control and so there is no point in trying to stop it.

mikeash 10y ago
In my experience, the "skeptic" side transitions fairly freely between "the world isn't warming," "the warming is natural," and "the warming is anthropogenic but beneficial" based on whatever best fits the argument at any given moment. Adding in "the warming is anthropogenic and harmful but unstoppable" wouldn't be much of a change.
curiousgeorgio 10y ago
I'm hardly a "pro-fossil fuel troll" as you seem to imply, though I do think it's odd that you'd resort to framing someone with opposing views as "losing [an] argument" when scientifically speaking, facts should speak for themselves - no arguments needed. The facts relating to AGW are far from clear. Anyone telling you otherwise is either funded by powerful political agendas, or too ignorant to recognize the manipulation happening in the media. There are very legitimate reasons to support the use of fossil fuels and to consider the cost - in human lives - of trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. To ignore that side of the debate is simply irresponsible. They certainly aren't free from negative consequences, but the negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuel use are far greater. Lastly, pointing out additional flaws in the AGW narrative is not an indication of "losing an argument" or subsequently deciding to fight another. I raised this particular point to help illustrate the fact that even if you do happen to subscribe to the idea of AGW, if you follow that idea to its logical conclusion, you're still no better off in terms of actually fixing anything. It's just one more clue that the whole AGW ideology serves a hidden political purpose. In my experience, ideological flaws tend to travel in pairs - or in this case, herds. I bet it feels like you're doing the world a favor by perpetuating the flawed idea that climate change and fossil fuels are the most important problems of our time, but unless you're actually willing to give up everything that fossil fuels do for us (FYI, that includes pretty much all the conveniences of modern civilized living), then that's a pretty hypocritical position to take. Worst of all, the anti-fossil-fuel agenda ends up hurting the people who stand to gain the most from industrial progress - especially those in developing countries.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  I think this argument is very shallow at best. You seem to be claiming that the choice is either "use all fossil fuels forever" or "give up all fossil fuels immediately". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that replacing any fossil fuel tech you name with an equivalent one that doesn't produce CO2 is the very definition of "advancing the tech". The argument for clean energy is basically that we need to be doing as much as we can to advance energy technology as quickly as possible no matter how it affects legacy industry, like fossil fuels. The human costs from ditching these legacy fuels are real, but rate very low compared to the cost to future humanity. There really is no argument about what we should be doing, but rather how quickly we can and how much effort is needed.