5 ms·

I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do

I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do they say we should stop producing heat. I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. Somebody tells me the building has been much hotter in the past, but this is the fastest its heated up before. I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this building heating up if it's been much hotter in the past, or if it's even a bad thing. I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat. It happens that the building is currently at a historically low temperature, and raising it could make the building more comfortable for many inhabitants anyways

yongjik 9y ago
I have to admire the audacity of people arguing "The Earth has been hotter several million years ago," as if that's relevant at all. If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).
- Frondo 9y ago
  In the 2016 election cycle, the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gave a great answer to an interview question. Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot." Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."
rwmj 9y ago
I think the problem is it's bad for humans on Earth, not that it's bad for life on Earth in the long run. For sure if all humans died off, all non-human life would be much better off.
JshWright 9y ago
I think you're stretching the analogy a bit too far there... We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanism is well understood, and the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades), we also know rising temperatures will result in rising sea levels (again, we have empirically observed this happening at rates consistent with our understanding of the mechanism). From there it's just math to figure out how much coastal land will be inundated over the coming century (which is just one of many implications of climate change). You are suggesting various ways in which that might not happen, with no evidence supporting them, from the perspective of someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of climate science. Do you think it is more likely that you have outsmarted 97% of climate scientists, or that the experts are more likely to know what they're talking about than you are?
- davidp 9y ago
  Strategy tip: Don't tell him to know his place and listen to the enlightened; send him the next set of links that will satisfy and maybe further stimulate his curiosity. Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion. In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority. Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.
  - embersdev 9y ago
    This is probably the best advice I have ever seen on this topic.
- refurb 9y ago
  the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades That's not my understanding. We had a warming "pause" from 2000 to 2010 (approximately). That was certainly not predicted. Then scientists went back to look for an explanation of the "pause". Ocean temperature data was then incoporated, other data adjusted and the "pause" was no more. I would characterize the climate modelling as constantly evolving. We don't have it nailed yet.
anigbrowl 9y ago
If only you would invest the same effort in trying to understand the arguments presented to you as you do in constructing shallow refutations thereof. I call bullshit.
unoti 9y ago
> I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. You're right, and this is a common problem when you're in a leadership role. The information is imperfect. If this weren't true we wouldn't need leaders, we'd be omniscient. Often, reasonable people could disagree about the best course of action. The trick is to have vision, judgement, and a willingness to take risks and decisive action with good transparency. > I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this... You're in good company. Most of our leadership has been taking the same strategy.
codecamper 9y ago
Maybe scientists who spend their entire lives studying this stuff know more about it you. Maybe you should listen to them. Maybe they aren't exact with their knowledge. Maybe even it'll be more out of control than even they are able to forecast. What then?
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  You mean like the scientists and doctors who for DECADES claimed a diet low in fat was "heart healthy" and diets high in saturated fats and cholesterol would lead to heart disease, only for that to be rescinded in the last few years?
  - JshWright 9y ago
    There are interesting parallels between oil companies meddling in climate science and certain food industries (particularly soda companies) doing the same thing in nutrition science.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  I'd recommend you need to review the rules of HN. Would save you from downvotes!
cardamomo 9y ago
This is not an apt analogy. > I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. It shouldn't be surprising that there isn't one clear answer. Earth is a complex system, and it is changing in many ways right now. > I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" The pace of global warming is indeed a problem, as organisms cannot migrate or adapt fast enough. Forest ecosystems, for example, may not be able to migrate to cooler latitudes or elevations. [1] > I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat. Not an option. Except for the sunlight streaming in, our planet is a closed system. A spaceship[2] may be a better analogy. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130915-climate-change-amazon-rain-forest-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130915-clima... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  > Not an option. Actually, it is an option. Either we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back underground where it came from; or we could start doing climate engineering to increase the reflectivity of Earth (less sunlight in), using water vapor clouds at low altitude or aerosols at high altitude; or we could put up a big shade in space between us and the sun. Are those expensive and difficult things? Definitely. But all of them are possible.
  - cardamomo 9y ago
    I guess I was thinking more literally: the Earth does not have large windows we can use to exchange air with the outside environment. Carbon sequestration doesn't remove CO2 from our "spaceship," though it may help.
    - mitchty 9y ago
      Why would you want to completely remove CO2 from the earth and not sequester it? There is a bunch of useful carbon and oxygen in it that you can at least leave for future humans to use if its sequestered.

yongjik 9y ago

I have to admire the audacity of people arguing "The Earth has been hotter several million years ago," as if that's relevant at all. If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).

Frondo 9y ago
In the 2016 election cycle, the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gave a great answer to an interview question. Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot." Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."

rwmj 9y ago

I think the problem is it's bad for humans on Earth, not that it's bad for life on Earth in the long run. For sure if all humans died off, all non-human life would be much better off.

JshWright 9y ago

I think you're stretching the analogy a bit too far there... We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanism is well understood, and the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades), we also know rising temperatures will result in rising sea levels (again, we have empirically observed this happening at rates consistent with our understanding of the mechanism). From there it's just math to figure out how much coastal land will be inundated over the coming century (which is just one of many implications of climate change). You are suggesting various ways in which that might not happen, with no evidence supporting them, from the perspective of someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of climate science. Do you think it is more likely that you have outsmarted 97% of climate scientists, or that the experts are more likely to know what they're talking about than you are?

davidp 9y ago
Strategy tip: Don't tell him to know his place and listen to the enlightened; send him the next set of links that will satisfy and maybe further stimulate his curiosity. Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion. In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority. Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.
- embersdev 9y ago
  This is probably the best advice I have ever seen on this topic.
refurb 9y ago
the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades That's not my understanding. We had a warming "pause" from 2000 to 2010 (approximately). That was certainly not predicted. Then scientists went back to look for an explanation of the "pause". Ocean temperature data was then incoporated, other data adjusted and the "pause" was no more. I would characterize the climate modelling as constantly evolving. We don't have it nailed yet.

anigbrowl 9y ago

If only you would invest the same effort in trying to understand the arguments presented to you as you do in constructing shallow refutations thereof. I call bullshit.

unoti 9y ago

> I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. You're right, and this is a common problem when you're in a leadership role. The information is imperfect. If this weren't true we wouldn't need leaders, we'd be omniscient. Often, reasonable people could disagree about the best course of action. The trick is to have vision, judgement, and a willingness to take risks and decisive action with good transparency. > I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this... You're in good company. Most of our leadership has been taking the same strategy.

codecamper 9y ago

Maybe scientists who spend their entire lives studying this stuff know more about it you. Maybe you should listen to them. Maybe they aren't exact with their knowledge. Maybe even it'll be more out of control than even they are able to forecast. What then?

pfarnsworth 9y ago
You mean like the scientists and doctors who for DECADES claimed a diet low in fat was "heart healthy" and diets high in saturated fats and cholesterol would lead to heart disease, only for that to be rescinded in the last few years?
- JshWright 9y ago
  There are interesting parallels between oil companies meddling in climate science and certain food industries (particularly soda companies) doing the same thing in nutrition science.
jsjohnst 9y ago
I'd recommend you need to review the rules of HN. Would save you from downvotes!

cardamomo 9y ago

This is not an apt analogy. > I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. It shouldn't be surprising that there isn't one clear answer. Earth is a complex system, and it is changing in many ways right now. > I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" The pace of global warming is indeed a problem, as organisms cannot migrate or adapt fast enough. Forest ecosystems, for example, may not be able to migrate to cooler latitudes or elevations. [1] > I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat. Not an option. Except for the sunlight streaming in, our planet is a closed system. A spaceship[2] may be a better analogy. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130915-climate-change-amazon-rain-forest-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130915-clima... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
> Not an option. Actually, it is an option. Either we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back underground where it came from; or we could start doing climate engineering to increase the reflectivity of Earth (less sunlight in), using water vapor clouds at low altitude or aerosols at high altitude; or we could put up a big shade in space between us and the sun. Are those expensive and difficult things? Definitely. But all of them are possible.
- cardamomo 9y ago
  I guess I was thinking more literally: the Earth does not have large windows we can use to exchange air with the outside environment. Carbon sequestration doesn't remove CO2 from our "spaceship," though it may help.
  - mitchty 9y ago
    Why would you want to completely remove CO2 from the earth and not sequester it? There is a bunch of useful carbon and oxygen in it that you can at least leave for future humans to use if its sequestered.