3 ms·

> Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a tas

by pvnick 9y ago

> Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. It is also extremely dangerous. Most folks engaging in the climate change debate are implicitly doing a cost-benefit analysis of action vs non-action (action implying governmental action). Non-action may involve rising temperatures and extreme weather. Or perhaps extreme whether has nothing to do with carbon emissions - consensus doesn't yet exist on that point. Or clean energy innovation like solar will become more cost effective and the problem will solve itself. Action on curbing emissions - e.g. carbon tax - could mitigate the problem. Or perhaps climate change inertia is too strong for anything less than complete ban of CO2 emissions to make any sort of dent. And instead something like a carbon tax could, for example, 1) slow down economies in developed nations, which means 2) lower purchasing power for people in those countries, leading to 3) fewer imports from developing countries, which further leads to 4) lower standard of living for folks in developing countries, including people starving to death. So "climate change denial" is a strawman. Skepticism is not a monolith. These are complex issues.

philipkglass 9y ago
I really wish that "climate change denial" were a strawman -- that everyone accepted the basic mechanisms and effects of AGW and just argued over the best policy responses. Kind of like how American politicians all agree that North Korea has nuclear weapons and just differ in their policy responses. There's some of that in the political debate around AGW -- some people might e.g. promote nuclear power while others favor renewables and yet others favor technology-neutral and revenue-neutral carbon taxes. But there is a large minority who assert that the whole problem is a hoax, and that scientists can't even prove North Korea (AGW) exists in the first place. Some of those people are in high government positions.
- pvnick 9y ago
  NK having or not having nuclear weapons is a binary choice. AGW is multivariate. If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)? Are rising temperatures invariably bad? What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation? Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases? Or maybe it decreases those things? Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns? How so? Do we get more hurricanes? Do emissions affect water availability? How about acid rain? etc.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    In the context of "Is AGW happening", your argument is not an honest argument, but an attempt to ask a thousand questions and try to drown the argument in the perception of uncertainty. In other words, FUD. But let me try to answer them as best as I can. > If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? It will keep rising as long as we keep generating CO2. > If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? Stop the "if", "at least", and "in part". Rising temperatures are due to man-made CO2, period. Other causes are rounding errors. > How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)? You mean those that say the sea level would rise 50 cm, 1 m, and 2.5 m? You don't have to know future trajectory of hurricanes in order to build a hotel in Miami. You just assume that a hurricane will hit it at some point in the future and plan for it. > Are rising temperatures invariably bad? Non sequitur. Of course it's not invariably bad. Some people made a fortune with the dot-com bubble, 2008 housing crisis, invasion on Iraq, you name it. The Earth has 7 billion people: basically no disaster will be invariably bad for all of them. > What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation? ...and? > Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases? Tropical diseases will most likely spread further, so yes. > Or maybe it decreases those things? I can't see how, but if that happens, well good. There must be at least a few positive effects of climate change. (E.g., the opening of the arctic shipping route.) > Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns? Well sure. > How so? We're still figuring this out, I'm afraid. > Do we get more hurricanes? Probably. > Do emissions affect water availability? Yes. Google "receding glaciers". > How about acid rain? ...how about acid rain what? I'm surprised that you think "NK having or not having nuclear weapons" is a binary choice, after all. Does it have uranium or plutonium? How much? Is it reliable? Where can it be delivered? Would China back up NK or not? Is it invariably bad? What if it acts as a deterrent against regional war? Does it affect economy of North or South Korea? Does it affect the politics of South Korea? Will we get more military conflict or less? What about Japan?
    - antisthenes 9y ago
      You're arguing with a libertarian troll. Nothing good will come of it. Regulation is bad, taxation is theft, no government is good is all you're going to get from him.
mikeash 9y ago
It's not a strawman. There are a frightening number of people who believe the issue is not at all complex, and that the whole thing is a lie made up by their political opponents. If you can believe his words (doubtful), the current President of the US is one of these.
- fuzzfactor 9y ago
  "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- ISAAC ASIMOV

by pvnick 9y ago

philipkglass 9y ago

I really wish that "climate change denial" were a strawman -- that everyone accepted the basic mechanisms and effects of AGW and just argued over the best policy responses. Kind of like how American politicians all agree that North Korea has nuclear weapons and just differ in their policy responses. There's some of that in the political debate around AGW -- some people might e.g. promote nuclear power while others favor renewables and yet others favor technology-neutral and revenue-neutral carbon taxes. But there is a large minority who assert that the whole problem is a hoax, and that scientists can't even prove North Korea (AGW) exists in the first place. Some of those people are in high government positions.

pvnick 9y ago
NK having or not having nuclear weapons is a binary choice. AGW is multivariate. If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)? Are rising temperatures invariably bad? What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation? Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases? Or maybe it decreases those things? Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns? How so? Do we get more hurricanes? Do emissions affect water availability? How about acid rain? etc.
- yongjik 9y ago
  In the context of "Is AGW happening", your argument is not an honest argument, but an attempt to ask a thousand questions and try to drown the argument in the perception of uncertainty. In other words, FUD. But let me try to answer them as best as I can. > If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? It will keep rising as long as we keep generating CO2. > If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? Stop the "if", "at least", and "in part". Rising temperatures are due to man-made CO2, period. Other causes are rounding errors. > How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)? You mean those that say the sea level would rise 50 cm, 1 m, and 2.5 m? You don't have to know future trajectory of hurricanes in order to build a hotel in Miami. You just assume that a hurricane will hit it at some point in the future and plan for it. > Are rising temperatures invariably bad? Non sequitur. Of course it's not invariably bad. Some people made a fortune with the dot-com bubble, 2008 housing crisis, invasion on Iraq, you name it. The Earth has 7 billion people: basically no disaster will be invariably bad for all of them. > What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation? ...and? > Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases? Tropical diseases will most likely spread further, so yes. > Or maybe it decreases those things? I can't see how, but if that happens, well good. There must be at least a few positive effects of climate change. (E.g., the opening of the arctic shipping route.) > Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns? Well sure. > How so? We're still figuring this out, I'm afraid. > Do we get more hurricanes? Probably. > Do emissions affect water availability? Yes. Google "receding glaciers". > How about acid rain? ...how about acid rain what? I'm surprised that you think "NK having or not having nuclear weapons" is a binary choice, after all. Does it have uranium or plutonium? How much? Is it reliable? Where can it be delivered? Would China back up NK or not? Is it invariably bad? What if it acts as a deterrent against regional war? Does it affect economy of North or South Korea? Does it affect the politics of South Korea? Will we get more military conflict or less? What about Japan?
  - antisthenes 9y ago
    You're arguing with a libertarian troll. Nothing good will come of it. Regulation is bad, taxation is theft, no government is good is all you're going to get from him.

mikeash 9y ago

It's not a strawman. There are a frightening number of people who believe the issue is not at all complex, and that the whole thing is a lie made up by their political opponents. If you can believe his words (doubtful), the current President of the US is one of these.

fuzzfactor 9y ago
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- ISAAC ASIMOV