6 ms·

The general scientific consensus is that any localized benefits are far outweighed by global detriments, such as rising sea levels, mass crop failure, animal ex

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Borders 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 ago
  You 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
    There's nothing wrong with government grants. I only point out that there is an incentive to agree with the hand that feeds you. This goes for labs employed by industry as well.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      If there was any incentive, it would be to deny the problem - after all, discovering global warming leads to the prospect of having to do expensive and unpopular things about it.
      - imjustsaying 10y ago
        If a climatologist "denies" that climate change is a problem, there will be less government spending on researching that problem. Furthermore, he won't get a job from the purse that thinks it's a problem - generating data that shows that it isn't a problem would take away the purse's job too. You seem to be conflating the benefits of society with the benefits of a living, breathing academic who has kids to feed and bills to pay. There is no conscious "government" - there are only conscious individual actors.
        aliakhtar 10y ago
        What do you think 'researching that problem' actually involves? Do you think scientists are just paid to sit there and type out bullshit reports? No, they have to produce real, scientific studies which are peer reviewed by other scientists all over the world. If there's a bullshit study, that's usually quickly discredited and the scientist's reputation damaged. (See: Andrew Wakefield) You're also living in a delusional world where scientists are not in high demand and can't find a much higher paying job at a private corporation, if they wanted to. Doing science for a government contract is a step down for most scientists. These are highly trained, skilled, educated, and intelligent people you're talking about.
        mannykannot 10y ago
        In other posts, you make a big deal of evidence, so where is your evidence here?
- kristjansson 10y ago
  So wait, let me get this straight. You're asking if any evidence exists refuting your questions, excepting the entirety of the output of the community dedicated to studying the problem?
  - imjustsaying 10y ago
    I am looking for evidence so that humans can draw wise conclusions. I point out that a group of people who are employed primarily by a single source are going to generate opinions that are favorable to that source. If they don't, they are handicapping their ability to put food on the table. Work can still be found without catering to the primary source, but it's not as financially beneficial to do so.
    - zanny 10y ago
      Most scientific studies are not funded to give those that paid for it false information to make them feel good. It is to get actual scientific data. You can lie to yourself in a bubble for much cheaper than paying teams of scientists to make up a fake reality for your own ego.
      - sesqu 10y ago
        True, but there is a significant risk of false information if the sponsor then can financially gain. For example, if the U.S. government felt that belief in climate change would be economically advantageous, they could pressure local researchers to find in favor of climate change. It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would have a mechanism to issue U.S. grants, however. This happens all the time in marketing. Although, to be fair, those studies are often preceded by a number of more accurate private studies, and only the publicized one is suspect.
        aoeuasdf1 10y ago
        The U.S. government decidedly does NOT think climate change is economically advantageous, and they have fought any measures against it tooth and nail.
- sesqu 10y ago
  Rapidly shifting environmental conditions usually lead to less, not more, animal diversity, because of invasive species and ecosystem collapse. Greater temperatures are associated with greater biodiversity overall, but this would be of foreign species.
- espadrine 10y ago
  > What evidence is there that there can't be more crop production at more northern, theoretically then warmer, altitudes? A common misunderstanding of global warming is the belief that all points on Earth will see their temperature rise by the same amount. The average temperature will rise, but many regions of Earth will actually see their temperature go down. Unfortunately, those regions are already not particularly warm, like Antarctica. Northern regions of Earth have their temperature heavily tied to the amount of sunlight they receive. While they will indeed get warmer compared to now, they will still be cold, and there is nothing that can be done about the six months of night time. Going to Siberia is not the answer, no matter how much you like Mr Putin. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Projected_change_in_annual_mean_surface_air_temperature_from_the_late_20th_century_to_the_middle_21st_century%2C_based_on_SRES_emissions_scenario_A1B.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Projecte... As for rising sea levels: for obvious reasons, settlements near the sea are common. Rebuilding all those cities will be a tremendous cost. Human migration will also be politically straining, which may cause a part of the US to secede. Immigration tends to irritate people for some reason. A famous US president was recently elected thanks to that resentment. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/6m_Sea_Level_Rise.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/6m_Sea_L... As for wildlife, rapid changes in temperature are correlated with mass extinction according to the fossil record. In fact, we are already currently undergoing a mass extinction, which is expected to go on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Global_war....
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Do not pretend that you have made any attempt to find answers to these questions.
dd36 10y ago
War, famine, massive migration.
- imjustsaying 10y ago
  What evidence is there that climate change could cause more war than it could prevent? What evidence is there that climate change could cause more famine than it could increase crop yield? Why is migration undesirable?
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Migration is undesirable because people don't like migration. Have you been paying attention at all to European or American politics? Even the very small amount of migration being driven by the Syrian civil war has caused massive amounts of discontent and unrest in the richest nations on Earth. Now imagine whole regions full of people wanting to move because rainfall patterns change, or sea level rise displaces them. Social unrest is the biggest risk that climate change creates. People like things the way they are, and get very upset when they think things are going to change.
  - wstrange 10y ago
    How about Syria http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

The 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 ago

I 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 ago
Borders 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 ago
You 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
  There's nothing wrong with government grants. I only point out that there is an incentive to agree with the hand that feeds you. This goes for labs employed by industry as well.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    If there was any incentive, it would be to deny the problem - after all, discovering global warming leads to the prospect of having to do expensive and unpopular things about it.
    - imjustsaying 10y ago
      If a climatologist "denies" that climate change is a problem, there will be less government spending on researching that problem. Furthermore, he won't get a job from the purse that thinks it's a problem - generating data that shows that it isn't a problem would take away the purse's job too. You seem to be conflating the benefits of society with the benefits of a living, breathing academic who has kids to feed and bills to pay. There is no conscious "government" - there are only conscious individual actors.
      - aliakhtar 10y ago
        What do you think 'researching that problem' actually involves? Do you think scientists are just paid to sit there and type out bullshit reports? No, they have to produce real, scientific studies which are peer reviewed by other scientists all over the world. If there's a bullshit study, that's usually quickly discredited and the scientist's reputation damaged. (See: Andrew Wakefield) You're also living in a delusional world where scientists are not in high demand and can't find a much higher paying job at a private corporation, if they wanted to. Doing science for a government contract is a step down for most scientists. These are highly trained, skilled, educated, and intelligent people you're talking about.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        In other posts, you make a big deal of evidence, so where is your evidence here?
kristjansson 10y ago
So wait, let me get this straight. You're asking if any evidence exists refuting your questions, excepting the entirety of the output of the community dedicated to studying the problem?
- imjustsaying 10y ago
  I am looking for evidence so that humans can draw wise conclusions. I point out that a group of people who are employed primarily by a single source are going to generate opinions that are favorable to that source. If they don't, they are handicapping their ability to put food on the table. Work can still be found without catering to the primary source, but it's not as financially beneficial to do so.
  - zanny 10y ago
    Most scientific studies are not funded to give those that paid for it false information to make them feel good. It is to get actual scientific data. You can lie to yourself in a bubble for much cheaper than paying teams of scientists to make up a fake reality for your own ego.
    - sesqu 10y ago
      True, but there is a significant risk of false information if the sponsor then can financially gain. For example, if the U.S. government felt that belief in climate change would be economically advantageous, they could pressure local researchers to find in favor of climate change. It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would have a mechanism to issue U.S. grants, however. This happens all the time in marketing. Although, to be fair, those studies are often preceded by a number of more accurate private studies, and only the publicized one is suspect.
      - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
        The U.S. government decidedly does NOT think climate change is economically advantageous, and they have fought any measures against it tooth and nail.
sesqu 10y ago
Rapidly shifting environmental conditions usually lead to less, not more, animal diversity, because of invasive species and ecosystem collapse. Greater temperatures are associated with greater biodiversity overall, but this would be of foreign species.
espadrine 10y ago
> What evidence is there that there can't be more crop production at more northern, theoretically then warmer, altitudes? A common misunderstanding of global warming is the belief that all points on Earth will see their temperature rise by the same amount. The average temperature will rise, but many regions of Earth will actually see their temperature go down. Unfortunately, those regions are already not particularly warm, like Antarctica. Northern regions of Earth have their temperature heavily tied to the amount of sunlight they receive. While they will indeed get warmer compared to now, they will still be cold, and there is nothing that can be done about the six months of night time. Going to Siberia is not the answer, no matter how much you like Mr Putin. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Projected_change_in_annual_mean_surface_air_temperature_from_the_late_20th_century_to_the_middle_21st_century%2C_based_on_SRES_emissions_scenario_A1B.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Projecte... As for rising sea levels: for obvious reasons, settlements near the sea are common. Rebuilding all those cities will be a tremendous cost. Human migration will also be politically straining, which may cause a part of the US to secede. Immigration tends to irritate people for some reason. A famous US president was recently elected thanks to that resentment. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/6m_Sea_Level_Rise.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/6m_Sea_L... As for wildlife, rapid changes in temperature are correlated with mass extinction according to the fossil record. In fact, we are already currently undergoing a mass extinction, which is expected to go on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Global_war....
mannykannot 10y ago
Do not pretend that you have made any attempt to find answers to these questions.

dd36 10y ago

War, famine, massive migration.

imjustsaying 10y ago
What evidence is there that climate change could cause more war than it could prevent? What evidence is there that climate change could cause more famine than it could increase crop yield? Why is migration undesirable?
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Migration is undesirable because people don't like migration. Have you been paying attention at all to European or American politics? Even the very small amount of migration being driven by the Syrian civil war has caused massive amounts of discontent and unrest in the richest nations on Earth. Now imagine whole regions full of people wanting to move because rainfall patterns change, or sea level rise displaces them. Social unrest is the biggest risk that climate change creates. People like things the way they are, and get very upset when they think things are going to change.
- wstrange 10y ago
  How about Syria http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059....

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]