4 ms·

I used to be an agnostic on the subject of global warming, but I think it's reasonable to believe there's an upward trend. I also think it's reasonable to beli

I used to be an agnostic on the subject of global warming, but I think it's reasonable to believe there's an upward trend. I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still exaggerating projections and the efficacy of whatever flavor of the month solution they're currently pushing. Here's what should be happening instead: I'd like to see activists making actual proposals with realistic assessments of the costs and benefits so that we can make rational judgments with respect to public resources that we're being asked to allocate to their causes. Is that too much to ask? Regardless, mocking conservatives and moderates who want a more careful accounting from the hysterical activists is what caused me to flag this post.

insickness 9y ago
It's ridiculous that people who question anything about climate change are called 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers. There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed. What percentage of climate change is caused by humans? How much can human beings do to reverse the climate? What is the cost to benefit ratio of those changes? There is too much variability in the answers to these questions to shame anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy.
- throwaway2018a 9y ago
  > 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers The number of people who will be killed by climate change in the next hundred years because we didn't act is going to make the holocaust pale in comparison. Climate change related deaths are expected to be just a little under one holocaust a year by 2030. So I think that is fair comparison. The cost benefit ratio is incalculable. But if you were to calculate costs: - Renewable are generally cheaper than alternatives - Renewable create far more jobs than would be lost - Cleaner air is undeniably linked to healthier people - And we save one hollocost a year I used to be agnostic as the other poster puts it too but this is ridiculous. The steps we need to take not only will definitely help the climate but also help the economy and health. It is a win-win-win even if the models are completely wrong, which I doubt. I think the turning point for me is when I learned sea levels are rising FASTER than the models predicted. Are you going to wait until the water is at your door to believe it is real?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - insickness 9y ago
    The implication in your answer is that we should be doing everything we can to stop climate change. And if I asked you whether we should be doing everything we can, you would probably say that yes, we should. But really truly everything? Have you quit using any form of transportation that relies on fossil fuels? Have you completely ceased to throw away anything non-recyclable? Have you reduced your carbon footprint to 0? For most people, the answer is no. What they say is that we should be moving in that direction. And that I agree with. The question about how fast and the method in which we do it leaves a lot of room for discussion without shaming people who decide the cost-to-benefit ratio may show it is not worth taking every single car off the road tomorrow morning.
    - throwaway2018a 9y ago
      No. The ideal is far from what is practical. We can't ban fossil fuel engines overnight for instance. Clean energy needs the market pressure of competition to help keep it honest. Also, I believe that taking every car off the road would actually exceed what scientist think need to be done. There is no need to be excessive. At the same time though, to put it in HN terms, it's like if you have a huge six month software project and according to the burn-down chart you've only completed 10% of your story points by month five. At some point catch up becomes impossible. I am really afraid that all the deniers are taking what could be an easy(ish) problem to solve incrementally and through politics (not science, not even economics) causing us to delay implementing solutions so long that by the time we need to act (because it is so obvious things are broken[1]) it will be very expensive and very painful. I'm all for weight the cost benefit but if there is a broken water pipe in your basement flooding your house and you priced out all the plumbers you don't debate for 20 years if the water really needs to be fixed or whether a cheaper plumber will be available in the future. And you definitely don't debate if the water exists. You pay what you need to to fix the leak. Furthermore in this analogy, the deniers are the insurance company on the phone asking the home owner who is waste deep in water, "Are you sure that the water really exists?" [1] For example: in parts of the Earth it is already obvious. In the northeast united states Lyme disease (a serious tick borne illness) has been spreading further and further south because the changes in climate are allowing ticks to be active more of the year and therefor migrate further. There are thousands of "tiny" side effects that people don't realize.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed Please, can you link some sources of those reasonable arguments?
Oletros 9y ago
> I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still exaggerating projections When you say activists, do you include climate scientists?

insickness 9y ago

It's ridiculous that people who question anything about climate change are called 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers. There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed. What percentage of climate change is caused by humans? How much can human beings do to reverse the climate? What is the cost to benefit ratio of those changes? There is too much variability in the answers to these questions to shame anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy.

throwaway2018a 9y ago
> 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers The number of people who will be killed by climate change in the next hundred years because we didn't act is going to make the holocaust pale in comparison. Climate change related deaths are expected to be just a little under one holocaust a year by 2030. So I think that is fair comparison. The cost benefit ratio is incalculable. But if you were to calculate costs: - Renewable are generally cheaper than alternatives - Renewable create far more jobs than would be lost - Cleaner air is undeniably linked to healthier people - And we save one hollocost a year I used to be agnostic as the other poster puts it too but this is ridiculous. The steps we need to take not only will definitely help the climate but also help the economy and health. It is a win-win-win even if the models are completely wrong, which I doubt. I think the turning point for me is when I learned sea levels are rising FASTER than the models predicted. Are you going to wait until the water is at your door to believe it is real?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- insickness 9y ago
  The implication in your answer is that we should be doing everything we can to stop climate change. And if I asked you whether we should be doing everything we can, you would probably say that yes, we should. But really truly everything? Have you quit using any form of transportation that relies on fossil fuels? Have you completely ceased to throw away anything non-recyclable? Have you reduced your carbon footprint to 0? For most people, the answer is no. What they say is that we should be moving in that direction. And that I agree with. The question about how fast and the method in which we do it leaves a lot of room for discussion without shaming people who decide the cost-to-benefit ratio may show it is not worth taking every single car off the road tomorrow morning.
  - throwaway2018a 9y ago
    No. The ideal is far from what is practical. We can't ban fossil fuel engines overnight for instance. Clean energy needs the market pressure of competition to help keep it honest. Also, I believe that taking every car off the road would actually exceed what scientist think need to be done. There is no need to be excessive. At the same time though, to put it in HN terms, it's like if you have a huge six month software project and according to the burn-down chart you've only completed 10% of your story points by month five. At some point catch up becomes impossible. I am really afraid that all the deniers are taking what could be an easy(ish) problem to solve incrementally and through politics (not science, not even economics) causing us to delay implementing solutions so long that by the time we need to act (because it is so obvious things are broken[1]) it will be very expensive and very painful. I'm all for weight the cost benefit but if there is a broken water pipe in your basement flooding your house and you priced out all the plumbers you don't debate for 20 years if the water really needs to be fixed or whether a cheaper plumber will be available in the future. And you definitely don't debate if the water exists. You pay what you need to to fix the leak. Furthermore in this analogy, the deniers are the insurance company on the phone asking the home owner who is waste deep in water, "Are you sure that the water really exists?" [1] For example: in parts of the Earth it is already obvious. In the northeast united states Lyme disease (a serious tick borne illness) has been spreading further and further south because the changes in climate are allowing ticks to be active more of the year and therefor migrate further. There are thousands of "tiny" side effects that people don't realize.
Oletros 9y ago
> There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed Please, can you link some sources of those reasonable arguments?

Oletros 9y ago

> I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still exaggerating projections When you say activists, do you include climate scientists?