4 ms·

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds. This is true, but the

by eric_h 10y ago

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds. This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could. It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talking to anyone who didn't express even a touch of an open mind about it. I agree that the magnitude of the effect has not been demonstrably measured by anyone yet, but I don't see that as any reason to not take action to at least try to reduce whatever damage we might have done, are currently doing, and might do in the future.

wtvanhest 10y ago
There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. That is why people are questioning the 'science' of global warming. If we as a species are wrong about global warming in either direction, that is a big problem.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  >There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. But the technology has been rapidly getting more economical, and in some ways is now actually cheaper than fossil fuels (which also has many negative externalities of its own). And this has been happening only because there has been an enormous investment in renewable energy. The idea that the scientists all on their own will work for decades and come up with fully-ready technologies that then will be put into full production is just not how these things actually work.
- Cretin2 10y ago
  There are far greater costs to not cutting emissions now. 15-40% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1000 years: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
  - thrw_skpt 10y ago
    Your link pretty much says "on average the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 3-4 years, but if we change the definition, then it's up to 1000 years".
    - Cretin2 10y ago
      No it does not. For a supposed MIT grad with a PhD I would expect excellent reading comprehension and the ability to understand scientific fields even when outside of your main one. Given your comments and misunderstandings here and elsewhere I am inclined to think you are not. Read the IPCC reports, if you don't have time, look at the summary for policy makers, particularly the physical science basis. Do you understand the difference between average and 15-40%? How about the difference between average and median, non-normal distributions, etc.? There's no changing of definitions from anyone except yourself in your misleading "quote". Here's a more accessible article: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...

by eric_h 10y ago

wtvanhest 10y ago

There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. That is why people are questioning the 'science' of global warming. If we as a species are wrong about global warming in either direction, that is a big problem.

woodandsteel 10y ago
>There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. But the technology has been rapidly getting more economical, and in some ways is now actually cheaper than fossil fuels (which also has many negative externalities of its own). And this has been happening only because there has been an enormous investment in renewable energy. The idea that the scientists all on their own will work for decades and come up with fully-ready technologies that then will be put into full production is just not how these things actually work.
Cretin2 10y ago
There are far greater costs to not cutting emissions now. 15-40% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1000 years: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
- thrw_skpt 10y ago
  Your link pretty much says "on average the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 3-4 years, but if we change the definition, then it's up to 1000 years".
  - Cretin2 10y ago
    No it does not. For a supposed MIT grad with a PhD I would expect excellent reading comprehension and the ability to understand scientific fields even when outside of your main one. Given your comments and misunderstandings here and elsewhere I am inclined to think you are not. Read the IPCC reports, if you don't have time, look at the summary for policy makers, particularly the physical science basis. Do you understand the difference between average and 15-40%? How about the difference between average and median, non-normal distributions, etc.? There's no changing of definitions from anyone except yourself in your misleading "quote". Here's a more accessible article: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...