6 ms·
> We are SOL on climate change anyway I understand that this is wrong, and I know it's part of the messaging campaign of climate change deniers (which doesn't
by hackuser 10y ago
> We are SOL on climate change anyway
I understand that this is wrong, and I know it's part of the messaging campaign of climate change deniers (which doesn't make it wrong, but does raise questions about it). First they said it isn't happening, then it isn't caused by humans, then it costs too much to fix, then there is nothing we can do about it. It's just one fallback position after another.
Climate change is a problem of degree; it's not binary. It can be better or worse, depending on what actions we take. The global temperature can rise 2 deg or 2.5 deg or more or less. The sea levels can rise X feet or X+1 feet or more or less. Droughts and can be more or less long and severe. These are very significant differences.
- imjustsaying 10y ago>climate change deniers >climate change is a problem Do you "deny" that climate change can have non-problematic effects? Can a temperature increase in one area be beneficial? Can a drought in one area mean more water in another area?
- masklinn 10y agoBeneficial effects for humanity? Yes, the rate of change we're heading for is way too high for anything humanity depends on to handle it, including our infrastructure.
- r00fus 10y agoInsofar as it's part of many runaway processes modeled [1] [2], no I don't think so. Or to put it in more stark: whatever minor benefits exist are outweighed by the massive risks to mid-long term survival of the human race. Some think we can simply out-evolve/adapt these changes. That, to me, stinks of hubris. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
- imjustsaying 10y agoWhat evidence is there that there could be a runaway greenhouse effect on any non-astronomical timescale?
- hackuser 10y agoLook up the IPCC reports; they have the answers to your questions.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- imjustsaying 10y ago"For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus-- appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities" (p. 90) http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
- hackuser 10y agoThanks; that's useful. A couple notes: * It's from 2009 * It's not an official report or conclusion, but appears to be more of a discussion aimed at "scoping" the next report. Still, it's far better than what previously informed our discussion here.
- Confusion 10y agoThere is no sense in rehashing the same old 'climate change 101' arguments and data here. If you were truly interested in, and knowledgeable on, the subject, you would know exactly what evidence there is and we would be discussing the merits of the evidence. As it is, you cannot be distinguished from the average parrot or troll. Anyone who does not at least agree that there is evidence that is worrying and worth discussing does not know enough about the subject to be having opinions and posing suggestive questions about it. If you don't at least start with: hey, I understand you are not a total idiot and I understand how it may seem like there is strong anthropogenic climate change going on, but here is why I think that that is not the case, then discussion is pointless.
- nameless912 10y agoThe general scientific consensus is that any localized benefits are far outweighed by global detriments, such as rising sea levels, mass crop failure, animal extinction, etc.
- imjustsaying 10y agoI like to carefully consider a consensus of any group which primarily depends on a single source, in this case government grants, for its paychecks. Evidence-based consensus is good, and I am primarily interested in the evidence. What evidence is there that rising sea levels will cause more harm than benefit? What evidence is there that there can't be more crop production at more northern, theoretically then warmer, altitudes? What evidence is there that there can't be increased animal diversity as previously colder areas become more habitable to different species?
- dd36 10y agoBorders don't conveniently move. Uninhabitable deserts aren't a good thing.
- hackuser 10y ago> Thank you for telling us the consensus of people who literally depend on government grants for their paychecks. It's a loose, circumstantial, conspiratorial aspersion, which has nothing to do with the facts of climate change. Maybe they could make more by providing credibility to the oil and gas industry. Again, look up IPCC reports. We're not a forum of climate scientists. I believe gravity also exists; I haven't read the papers myself and don't have time to find them.
- aliakhtar 10y agoYou would not be using the internet were it not for research done by scientists on government grants, moron. Nor would your or your loved ones' lives be saved next time you're in the hospital.
- imjustsaying 10y ago
- sesqu 10y agoExcess water is not beneficial. It isn't associated with social instability like drought is, but it does lead to loss of harvest.
- mannykannot 10y agoThe corner cases are not significant in comparison to the majority cases, and it is not rational to pretend otherwise.
- rayiner 10y agoThe government could eliminate poverty if everyone was willing to make significant sacrifices to do so. But it won't happen because the necessary changes would be politically untenable. Climate change is the same. No President is going to make the kind of significant investments necessary to have a meaningful impact on climate change. The Paris Accord is a merely symbolic bit of goal setting. It does not provide an infrastructure for how to achieve the goal, or commit any real resources to doing so. In terms of national priorities, even among Democrats, climate change takes a back seat to (1) jobs; (2) pensions; (3) education; and (4) healthcare. At the same time, it'll require a bigger change to the economy than any of those things.
- hackuser 10y agoI guess we need some research to back up how much it would cost. My understanding is that experts in the field widely believe we can afford to make a significant impact, and that the costs of climate change are far greater than the costs of preventing it.
- obastani 10y agoI think the grandparent's point is that it doesn't matter whether it's technically possible for us to prevent climate change, it's politically impossible even with a Democrat as president. Which I hope is not true, but with Trump in office it seems all the more probable.
- saikat 10y agohttp://thesolutionsproject.org/ http://thesolutionsproject.org/
- sanderjd 10y agoBut the costs happen at different times. We are already paying some of the cost of climate change, but what we're currently paying is far less than the cost of prevention. It is a short-term vs. long-term problem, and unfortunately short-term thinking is ascendant.
- rayiner 10y ago