2 ms·

I've long been on the human-caused GW band wagon - ever since I learned about global warming 10+ years ago. But the alarmism turned me off to the idea that dra

I've long been on the human-caused GW band wagon - ever since I learned about global warming 10+ years ago. But the alarmism turned me off to the idea that dramatic legislation is actually needed, or that GW is even all that big of an issue. As far as I can tell unabated GW would never have a big impact on my life [edit:] even if all the change happened within my lifetime.

mikeash 9y ago
Screw future generations?
- randyrand 9y ago
  *even if all the change happened within my lifetime.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    You don’t think you’d be affected by the massive economic disruption from having so many major cities flooded, or ocean ecosystems devastated by acidification, or refugee crises on a scale never before seen when productive agricultural regions become unproductive?
    - randyrand 9y ago
      Well definitely a small small fraction of how I was affected by the 2008 financial crisis or even the recent refugee wave. GW will happen slowly over many decades... Not suddenly like either of those. I think people forget that. In fact, we're already living through the speed of these changes! Cities are already flooding more and more and refugees are already leaving, it's just such a slow process that it's barely noticeable and not even a daily concern. And this is predicted to be the same speed for the rest of GW. A city slowly flooding more and more over 50 years is not too different than the emigration from Detroit over a smaller timespan. Same goes for agricultural shifts. Markets are already adjusting. There will be no crisis.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        There’s a pretty big difference from a city doing it, and dozens (hundreds?) all doing it at once.
        randyrand 9y ago
        "at once" meaning slowly over 100+ years. How many people left these flood cities over the last decade? Because this pace will be the same going forward. There is no refugee crisis. I'd be concerned if GW was going to increase ad infinitude, but it's not. We eventually use up all the fossil fuels, and the results will be minor.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Why would it be the same pace going forward? The rate of rise is accelerating and the consequences become much more severe as it gets higher.
        randyrand 9y ago
        That's the alarmism talking... The rate of increase is linear with population growth. Meaning we are also linearly more ready to handle the small flow of refugees to linearly more cities and food market changes.
        mikeash 9y ago
        How is the rate of increase linear with population growth?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
liberte82 9y ago
Your children would be so proud.
- randyrand 9y ago
  They wont care. It'd be even less noticeable to them than it us for us - the people that will be alive for most of the changes. Unless someone spends a lot of effort trying to convince them to be mad about it, I don't see them being less happy than we are today because of GW.

mikeash 9y ago

Screw future generations?

randyrand 9y ago
*even if all the change happened within my lifetime.
- mikeash 9y ago
  You don’t think you’d be affected by the massive economic disruption from having so many major cities flooded, or ocean ecosystems devastated by acidification, or refugee crises on a scale never before seen when productive agricultural regions become unproductive?
  - randyrand 9y ago
    Well definitely a small small fraction of how I was affected by the 2008 financial crisis or even the recent refugee wave. GW will happen slowly over many decades... Not suddenly like either of those. I think people forget that. In fact, we're already living through the speed of these changes! Cities are already flooding more and more and refugees are already leaving, it's just such a slow process that it's barely noticeable and not even a daily concern. And this is predicted to be the same speed for the rest of GW. A city slowly flooding more and more over 50 years is not too different than the emigration from Detroit over a smaller timespan. Same goes for agricultural shifts. Markets are already adjusting. There will be no crisis.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      There’s a pretty big difference from a city doing it, and dozens (hundreds?) all doing it at once.
      - randyrand 9y ago
        "at once" meaning slowly over 100+ years. How many people left these flood cities over the last decade? Because this pace will be the same going forward. There is no refugee crisis. I'd be concerned if GW was going to increase ad infinitude, but it's not. We eventually use up all the fossil fuels, and the results will be minor.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Why would it be the same pace going forward? The rate of rise is accelerating and the consequences become much more severe as it gets higher.
        randyrand 9y ago
        That's the alarmism talking... The rate of increase is linear with population growth. Meaning we are also linearly more ready to handle the small flow of refugees to linearly more cities and food market changes.
        mikeash 9y ago
        How is the rate of increase linear with population growth?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

liberte82 9y ago

Your children would be so proud.

randyrand 9y ago
They wont care. It'd be even less noticeable to them than it us for us - the people that will be alive for most of the changes. Unless someone spends a lot of effort trying to convince them to be mad about it, I don't see them being less happy than we are today because of GW.