4 ms·

One thing Chinese should know about the United States in the Paris Climate Agreement: many people in the U.S., including elected officials and influential folks

by kriro 10y ago

One thing Chinese should know about the United States in the Paris Climate Agreement: many people in the U.S., including elected officials and influential folks don't actually believe global warming is a thing. I know it may sound far fetched for a country that hosts the most renown universities in the world but it is what it is.

boona 10y ago
> folks don't actually believe global warming To be nit picky, the belief is no longer in global warming, but climate change. Those who promoted global warming got their predictions terribly wrong, and that's why we refer to it as climate change today. They got it right this time I'm sure.
- nl 10y ago
  To be clear, both are correct. The earth is warming, and the climate is changing. In some places that change results in a wetter (and perhaps cooler) climate, so climate change is easier to talk about. But I guess here we all understand the difference between local and global effects, and between climate and weather, right?
  - boona 10y ago
    > The earth is warming Right, but only 0.74ºC in the last 100 years, which may very well be a normal variance. So original projections were wrong, and they had to change the claim being made.
    - nl 10y ago
      What original predictions? All the old ones I've seen show exactly what seems to be happening: an accelerating warming. The majority of the 0.74C is in the second half of that 100 years, just like one would expect.
senorjazz 10y ago
Do they really though? I am from the UK and I see it on the news, read it in the newspapers that some elected official comes out with (what I am assuming is the party line) "Climate change is unknown, the science is undecided, humans have no part to play in the change in climate".... But surely, they don't "believe" it. They must be somewhat educated to get elected to office. Surely they see the evidence of 97 scientists saying "yes" and 3 saying "no" who all have ties to big oil. There is no debate about it any more, the scientific is as close to unanimous on the answer as it is possible to get. How can they possibly deny it? Is it purely political? Is it bribes - sorry lobbying - money that blinds them? Is it religion? Is it just ignorance. I just cannot get my head round it. There is no other comparable country with the same view that I am aware.
- danbruc 10y ago
  Look at religious people. Among them are a lot of educated people and scientist, even if proportionally less than in the general population. Humans have quite some capacity to hold conflicting ideas without to much worries, just don't think too much about it.
- Melk 10y ago
  What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.
- the-dude 10y ago
  Where do the other 97 scientist get their money? Are you sure their ties are neutral?
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale. 2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects. 3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation. 4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today. One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them. What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...

by kriro 10y ago

boona 10y ago

> folks don't actually believe global warming To be nit picky, the belief is no longer in global warming, but climate change. Those who promoted global warming got their predictions terribly wrong, and that's why we refer to it as climate change today. They got it right this time I'm sure.

nl 10y ago
To be clear, both are correct. The earth is warming, and the climate is changing. In some places that change results in a wetter (and perhaps cooler) climate, so climate change is easier to talk about. But I guess here we all understand the difference between local and global effects, and between climate and weather, right?
- boona 10y ago
  > The earth is warming Right, but only 0.74ºC in the last 100 years, which may very well be a normal variance. So original projections were wrong, and they had to change the claim being made.
  - nl 10y ago
    What original predictions? All the old ones I've seen show exactly what seems to be happening: an accelerating warming. The majority of the 0.74C is in the second half of that 100 years, just like one would expect.

senorjazz 10y ago

Do they really though? I am from the UK and I see it on the news, read it in the newspapers that some elected official comes out with (what I am assuming is the party line) "Climate change is unknown, the science is undecided, humans have no part to play in the change in climate".... But surely, they don't "believe" it. They must be somewhat educated to get elected to office. Surely they see the evidence of 97 scientists saying "yes" and 3 saying "no" who all have ties to big oil. There is no debate about it any more, the scientific is as close to unanimous on the answer as it is possible to get. How can they possibly deny it? Is it purely political? Is it bribes - sorry lobbying - money that blinds them? Is it religion? Is it just ignorance. I just cannot get my head round it. There is no other comparable country with the same view that I am aware.

danbruc 10y ago
Look at religious people. Among them are a lot of educated people and scientist, even if proportionally less than in the general population. Humans have quite some capacity to hold conflicting ideas without to much worries, just don't think too much about it.
Melk 10y ago
What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.
the-dude 10y ago
Where do the other 97 scientist get their money? Are you sure their ties are neutral?
didgeoridoo 10y ago
There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale. 2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects. 3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation. 4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today. One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them. What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...