5 ms·

Much as I agree that fossil fuel burning is a horrendous thing that has sent us on a life-threatening trajectory, I also think this narrative is overly simplifi

Much as I agree that fossil fuel burning is a horrendous thing that has sent us on a life-threatening trajectory, I also think this narrative is overly simplified. The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. Doubting if Thomas Mann will be the person to do that though. To be clear, climate science has come a long way and has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that fossil fuel burning is changing our climate in ways that already is causing damage to the livelihood of millions if not billions of people, something which will accelerate in the short term and put our capacity for adaption and human compassion to a severe test, that we will probably fail miserably. So the core issue is not up for debate. But there are still claims that rubs me the wrong way, for example that is that this is "a fight between science and self-interested industry". Yes, to some extent. But climate science is not a mature science like (some parts of) physics. As a science it is still struggling to explain why things like ice-ages were (are?) a recurring phenomenon. The reason is that climate science is in essence a historical science. What this means: while we can tell that the climate has behaved in a certain way historically, and many times (not always) understand why, we have no way to determine the accumulated future effects of warming beyond a certain, in geological terms, fairly short horizon. It may well, through the combination of various tipping point effects, planetary, intergalactic or even hitherto unknown extra-galactic phenomenon have the exact opposite effect, as far as we know. So part of the drama is in my view caused by climate science trying to establish itself as a mature science with a predictability powers comparable to sciences that can perform reproducible experiments, downplaying its own nature as a historical science. The fossil burning industry (and all the other interests tied in with them) is handed a gift in a way, since they can appeal to the natural intelligence of the average person, and get an agreement that the climate science is making hyperbolic claims. We don't know everything, and it would serve the sane discussion well to delimit what we can and can not predict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

sintaxi 9y ago
Of course its up for debate. Climate alarmists claims were never defended in the first place and there are countless instances of known data manipulation and deliberate misleading of the public. The debate hasn't even happened yet.
js8 9y ago
> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.
- Certhas 9y ago
  Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine. It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late.
  - mratzloff 9y ago
    It's too late for many animal species and people living in certain areas. We've already passed that marker. Not too late for humanity as a whole.
  - js8 9y ago
    > Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late. While I agree with you, I am not sure I would count that as an action. It's more like "humbly" watching market and natural forces duking it out, and hoping that the former wins, all the while making the latter stronger. I know there are many individuals who do act, and I didn't mean that comment to include them. But sadly, the idea that we should restrict our energy usage has not entered public consciousness very much.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    > It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. I'd say it's much more than a bit like that. The exact same tactics are used in both places. It's a standard technique to complain about the technique rather than the message. For police violence, riots are (rightfully, to be clear) met with "you should protest peacefully." Then peaceful protests are met with "you shouldn't be so disruptive." Peaceful protests organized to avoid busy roads are criticized for being annoying or using up police resources for crowd control or leaving too much trash behind. Non-protest speech is criticized for being out of place. And finally we reach a point where people do nothing but kneel to draw attention to the issue, and they're still criticized for being disrespectful. The message is always, "I agree with what you say, but I don't agree with how you're saying it." But they'll never agree with how it's said. Same deal with climate change. Supposedly well meaning critics are always saying that we should tone it down. But it doesn't matter whether the message is "We're all going to die if we don't do something drastic" or "there might be a temperature increase with a mix of good and bad effects." The message is never good enough.
Certhas 9y ago
The science isn't over. There are plenty of things we don't know. But likewise there are things we do know. I know of no serious climate scientist who claims we understand the climate. But we still know that human activity is warming the globe at an unprecedented rate. The fossil burning industry has been handed a gift not by scientists overreaching but by systematically discrediting solid science. This is no different than decades of subterfuge by tobacco to sow doubt about the health effects of smoking, and similar things with asbestos. Further peoples "natural intelligence" being really really bad at dealing with uncertainty and slow multi generational global phenomena. If you predict something to happen with 90% chance, and it doesn't happen, people naturally tend to think you were wrong. Further, the language of careful uncertainty analysis has often been twisted by parties who are interested in maximizing the profit from their historical investments. Of course you will find individual scientists who disagree over how certain or uncertain particular results are (and who are more alarmist than others), but please, since they seem to be so irritating to you, could you actually point out cases of this supposed overreach? Because in all honesty it sounds to me like you're more irked by scientists also being advocates. In which case you should ask yourself, if your research shows that there is a considerable risk (which is a criterion well short of scientific certainty) of dramatic negative consequences, what is your ethical obligation as a scientist in society? Is it sufficient to publish this result in an academic journal, or do you have an obligation to ring the alarm bells?
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  We're in agreement regarding the utter seriousness of global warming, glad to hear. I do believe the main tasks are: adapting to the changes that are coming, taking care of those of us that will get displaced (which may mean moving to a green Sahara), and making sure we don't further worsen the problem. But in light of the prospecting that takes place all over (for example in Greenland and other areas made exploitable by receding glaciers) I'm rather pessimistic about the last point. Even with the fairly rapid development of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal) it does not seem that these will replace fossil or nuclear fuels any time soon, only supplement it. As for examples of overreach, I was amiss in not citing anything in support, but the comment was already too long. I'll cite one such example here which I believe supports my point: The so called 'Climategate' affair, which, while scientists involved were exonerated from any direct wrong-doing, revealed a team of distinguished scientists "so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause" [0] I'll skip your questions based on the straw-man reading if you don't mind. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&n=Top/News/Science/Columns/Findings https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&...
strommen 9y ago
Climate science is absolutely "a fight between science and self-interested industry". The general scientific principle, that higher levels of CO2 in the air increases Earth's temperature, is supported by both evidence and theory. The fossil fuel industries have been hiding, obfuscating, and denying this for the past 30 years.
dash2 9y ago
Heh. You mean Michael Mann. Thomas Mann was the German novelist.
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  right! verdammt ;-)
nikdaheratik 9y ago
I disagree about needing more "humility". The problem is that climate modelling is much more difficult than many of the "solved" physics problems, but due to what we already know about the problem of Climate Change, we need the answers as soon as we can get them. The closest historical example that comes to mind, as far as physics goes, is the Manhattan Project, and there we had a clear goal in mind and a timeline that was dictated by wartime necessity. The number of lives affected by Climate Change is comperable, but there's no clear enemy dictating the an agressive timeline. The other issue is that the people with the money to burn, so to speak, are the fossil fuel companies and they have a vested interest in delaying the changes we need as long as possible. So they put that money to use in both the media and political arenas to play up the "debate" as long as they can. This is all exactly like it was with the Tobacco industry which fought for decades to keep the dangers of smoking from being publicized. Only it's not just smokers who get killed by melting ice caps. TL;DR: we know enough about climate change to know that it's happening, it's a big deal, and we have to make major changes to avoid massive damage to our planet. The majority of the noise about how we "don't know enough" about it is coming from the people who have a vested interest in delaying these changes as long as possible.

sintaxi 9y ago

Of course its up for debate. Climate alarmists claims were never defended in the first place and there are countless instances of known data manipulation and deliberate misleading of the public. The debate hasn't even happened yet.

js8 9y ago

> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.

Certhas 9y ago
Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine. It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late.
- mratzloff 9y ago
  It's too late for many animal species and people living in certain areas. We've already passed that marker. Not too late for humanity as a whole.
- js8 9y ago
  > Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late. While I agree with you, I am not sure I would count that as an action. It's more like "humbly" watching market and natural forces duking it out, and hoping that the former wins, all the while making the latter stronger. I know there are many individuals who do act, and I didn't mean that comment to include them. But sadly, the idea that we should restrict our energy usage has not entered public consciousness very much.
- mikeash 9y ago
  > It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. I'd say it's much more than a bit like that. The exact same tactics are used in both places. It's a standard technique to complain about the technique rather than the message. For police violence, riots are (rightfully, to be clear) met with "you should protest peacefully." Then peaceful protests are met with "you shouldn't be so disruptive." Peaceful protests organized to avoid busy roads are criticized for being annoying or using up police resources for crowd control or leaving too much trash behind. Non-protest speech is criticized for being out of place. And finally we reach a point where people do nothing but kneel to draw attention to the issue, and they're still criticized for being disrespectful. The message is always, "I agree with what you say, but I don't agree with how you're saying it." But they'll never agree with how it's said. Same deal with climate change. Supposedly well meaning critics are always saying that we should tone it down. But it doesn't matter whether the message is "We're all going to die if we don't do something drastic" or "there might be a temperature increase with a mix of good and bad effects." The message is never good enough.

Certhas 9y ago

The science isn't over. There are plenty of things we don't know. But likewise there are things we do know. I know of no serious climate scientist who claims we understand the climate. But we still know that human activity is warming the globe at an unprecedented rate. The fossil burning industry has been handed a gift not by scientists overreaching but by systematically discrediting solid science. This is no different than decades of subterfuge by tobacco to sow doubt about the health effects of smoking, and similar things with asbestos. Further peoples "natural intelligence" being really really bad at dealing with uncertainty and slow multi generational global phenomena. If you predict something to happen with 90% chance, and it doesn't happen, people naturally tend to think you were wrong. Further, the language of careful uncertainty analysis has often been twisted by parties who are interested in maximizing the profit from their historical investments. Of course you will find individual scientists who disagree over how certain or uncertain particular results are (and who are more alarmist than others), but please, since they seem to be so irritating to you, could you actually point out cases of this supposed overreach? Because in all honesty it sounds to me like you're more irked by scientists also being advocates. In which case you should ask yourself, if your research shows that there is a considerable risk (which is a criterion well short of scientific certainty) of dramatic negative consequences, what is your ethical obligation as a scientist in society? Is it sufficient to publish this result in an academic journal, or do you have an obligation to ring the alarm bells?

stareatgoats 9y ago
We're in agreement regarding the utter seriousness of global warming, glad to hear. I do believe the main tasks are: adapting to the changes that are coming, taking care of those of us that will get displaced (which may mean moving to a green Sahara), and making sure we don't further worsen the problem. But in light of the prospecting that takes place all over (for example in Greenland and other areas made exploitable by receding glaciers) I'm rather pessimistic about the last point. Even with the fairly rapid development of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal) it does not seem that these will replace fossil or nuclear fuels any time soon, only supplement it. As for examples of overreach, I was amiss in not citing anything in support, but the comment was already too long. I'll cite one such example here which I believe supports my point: The so called 'Climategate' affair, which, while scientists involved were exonerated from any direct wrong-doing, revealed a team of distinguished scientists "so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause" [0] I'll skip your questions based on the straw-man reading if you don't mind. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&n=Top/News/Science/Columns/Findings https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&...

strommen 9y ago

Climate science is absolutely "a fight between science and self-interested industry". The general scientific principle, that higher levels of CO2 in the air increases Earth's temperature, is supported by both evidence and theory. The fossil fuel industries have been hiding, obfuscating, and denying this for the past 30 years.

dash2 9y ago

Heh. You mean Michael Mann. Thomas Mann was the German novelist.

stareatgoats 9y ago
right! verdammt ;-)

nikdaheratik 9y ago

I disagree about needing more "humility". The problem is that climate modelling is much more difficult than many of the "solved" physics problems, but due to what we already know about the problem of Climate Change, we need the answers as soon as we can get them. The closest historical example that comes to mind, as far as physics goes, is the Manhattan Project, and there we had a clear goal in mind and a timeline that was dictated by wartime necessity. The number of lives affected by Climate Change is comperable, but there's no clear enemy dictating the an agressive timeline. The other issue is that the people with the money to burn, so to speak, are the fossil fuel companies and they have a vested interest in delaying the changes we need as long as possible. So they put that money to use in both the media and political arenas to play up the "debate" as long as they can. This is all exactly like it was with the Tobacco industry which fought for decades to keep the dangers of smoking from being publicized. Only it's not just smokers who get killed by melting ice caps. TL;DR: we know enough about climate change to know that it's happening, it's a big deal, and we have to make major changes to avoid massive damage to our planet. The majority of the noise about how we "don't know enough" about it is coming from the people who have a vested interest in delaying these changes as long as possible.