3 ms·

Where do you want me to start. Earthquakes, tsunamis, animals, forest fires, bad crops, flooding, undrinkable water, tornados, storms I could go on. It's real

Where do you want me to start. Earthquakes, tsunamis, animals, forest fires, bad crops, flooding, undrinkable water, tornados, storms I could go on. It's really quite fascinating just how many people which I assume are normally rational thinking beings have decided to throw out any sense of critical thinking when it comes to nature and climate. It's like Scientology. Lots of talk about science and then when you dig into it the actual science does not lead you to conclude what is claimed.

graeme 8y ago
Yes, those are the usual things. Climate change will result in much more bad crops, more heat waves, worse storms and storm surges + rising oceans, lack of water due to glaciers melting. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between "there was a fairly stable set amount of problems" and "there will be an increase in problems" We were used to certain operating conditions for earth, and they're shifting rapidly.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Again you are making the same mistake as most other here. You are speculating not actually demonstrating this to be true. You have no base for the claim that there are going to be more problems just like you have no base for knowing if we are going to be better to deal with those that come. We have more crops than ever and we are better at making sure they survive than ever in ever more hostile environments. You are only looking at one side of this discussion and forgetting the other.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    It's not wild speculation. The current best scientific models predict a future climate that will likely cause many of these increased problems.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Models aren't scientific in any useful sense of that word. They are software models based on math and only indirectly on science. This is why the model don't come up with one outcome but with a lot of different scenarios. If it was purely science all the way there were no need to do different models, "the science" would dictate it. So you are misrepresenting how this works. So yes the conclusions are based on a lot of speculation. The problem is that people like you try to claim that these specific scenarios which are only one of many potential outcomes is somehow science. It's not. Not even by a longshot.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - graeme 8y ago
    It doesn't take a fancy model to observe "the glacier is disappearing. When it is gone there will be no summer melt water" Yes, there are ways to adapt. But previously the glacier provided a free service and now we must soend energy to replace it. It likewise doesn't take a soeculative model to observe "hmm, more plants die in heat waves. If it keeps getting warmer more crops will die" Certainly we can motigste, but again we pay more energy for the same result. It likewise needs no speculative model to note that storm surges now send water seeping up through the streets of Miami, and that if oceans keep rising, this will worsen. You seem to be saying that we can't know anything about the future, and if anything bad happens we will surely adapt. Your optimism is admirable but you would make a lousy general.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Again you are trying to position this as something new. Humans have dealt with this before. There are plenty of links in this thread here showing how it's been even warmer before yet life went on. So again it still comes back to the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else have even remotely demonstrated that we should be as worried about the future as many would like us to be. I am not saying we can't know anything I am saying we don't know what exactly it is we should worry about and whether we should worry and we don't know what the consequences of prematurely doing things like making fossil fuel illegal or focusing on an inferior technology like solar and wind long before they can provide enough energy and replace the current energy sources reliably is the wrong way to go about it EXACTLY BECAUSE there is nothing that suggest that the consequences whatever they are will be cataclysmic which means it's not actually an argument for forgetting about the peoeple who exist today and who also want live better lives, also want to live like we do in the west. You and others seem to assume that hindering climate change is without consequences for people living today. I have yet to see a suggestion that isn't fundamentally about stopping what we are doing to some extent.
UnFleshedOne 8y ago
Those are all rather localized and minor events that still can and do devastate whole countries for a long time. Now take them all (except earthquakes, maybe add social issues like war) and start gradually increasing frequency. Do you expect there to be a breaking point? What do you expect to happen when least lucky countries collapse and add refugee pressure on neighbors. Is there a threshold where dominoes start to fall?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Again how are those things different than what we are already dealing with? Less people die from extreme weather today, how does that square with your claim if the trend has in fact been increasing(hint not actually proven)
- Jach 8y ago
  This might be the point of disagreement... Let's agree to assume that many disasters, natural and social, have befallen humanity over its existence, and that some of them are going to increase in frequency proportional with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can we also agree that humanity has gotten dramatically better at mitigating the negative impacts of various disasters, and especially over the time frame of people who are currently alive? If we're good on both of those, then I think the disagreement is whether we'll continue to dramatically improve or not. In other words, if we can drive the total negative cost (premature deaths, property damage, civil unrest, etc.) of certain disasters towards 0 by improving our response/mitigation capability, then it won't really matter if they come at an increased rate, the additional impact is a rounding error. If you agree with this, or see how one could agree with it, then maybe you can see why it's frustrating to hear people freaking out about climate change being an existential threat (it can be, given Venus, but that planet had no humans opposing it) which will doom our planet unless and only unless global CO2 is reduced (at some cost, perhaps partly of our species' ability to improve our mitigations fast enough).

graeme 8y ago

Yes, those are the usual things. Climate change will result in much more bad crops, more heat waves, worse storms and storm surges + rising oceans, lack of water due to glaciers melting. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between "there was a fairly stable set amount of problems" and "there will be an increase in problems" We were used to certain operating conditions for earth, and they're shifting rapidly.

ThomPete 8y ago
Again you are making the same mistake as most other here. You are speculating not actually demonstrating this to be true. You have no base for the claim that there are going to be more problems just like you have no base for knowing if we are going to be better to deal with those that come. We have more crops than ever and we are better at making sure they survive than ever in ever more hostile environments. You are only looking at one side of this discussion and forgetting the other.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  It's not wild speculation. The current best scientific models predict a future climate that will likely cause many of these increased problems.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Models aren't scientific in any useful sense of that word. They are software models based on math and only indirectly on science. This is why the model don't come up with one outcome but with a lot of different scenarios. If it was purely science all the way there were no need to do different models, "the science" would dictate it. So you are misrepresenting how this works. So yes the conclusions are based on a lot of speculation. The problem is that people like you try to claim that these specific scenarios which are only one of many potential outcomes is somehow science. It's not. Not even by a longshot.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- graeme 8y ago
  It doesn't take a fancy model to observe "the glacier is disappearing. When it is gone there will be no summer melt water" Yes, there are ways to adapt. But previously the glacier provided a free service and now we must soend energy to replace it. It likewise doesn't take a soeculative model to observe "hmm, more plants die in heat waves. If it keeps getting warmer more crops will die" Certainly we can motigste, but again we pay more energy for the same result. It likewise needs no speculative model to note that storm surges now send water seeping up through the streets of Miami, and that if oceans keep rising, this will worsen. You seem to be saying that we can't know anything about the future, and if anything bad happens we will surely adapt. Your optimism is admirable but you would make a lousy general.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Again you are trying to position this as something new. Humans have dealt with this before. There are plenty of links in this thread here showing how it's been even warmer before yet life went on. So again it still comes back to the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else have even remotely demonstrated that we should be as worried about the future as many would like us to be. I am not saying we can't know anything I am saying we don't know what exactly it is we should worry about and whether we should worry and we don't know what the consequences of prematurely doing things like making fossil fuel illegal or focusing on an inferior technology like solar and wind long before they can provide enough energy and replace the current energy sources reliably is the wrong way to go about it EXACTLY BECAUSE there is nothing that suggest that the consequences whatever they are will be cataclysmic which means it's not actually an argument for forgetting about the peoeple who exist today and who also want live better lives, also want to live like we do in the west. You and others seem to assume that hindering climate change is without consequences for people living today. I have yet to see a suggestion that isn't fundamentally about stopping what we are doing to some extent.

UnFleshedOne 8y ago

Those are all rather localized and minor events that still can and do devastate whole countries for a long time. Now take them all (except earthquakes, maybe add social issues like war) and start gradually increasing frequency. Do you expect there to be a breaking point? What do you expect to happen when least lucky countries collapse and add refugee pressure on neighbors. Is there a threshold where dominoes start to fall?

ThomPete 8y ago
Again how are those things different than what we are already dealing with? Less people die from extreme weather today, how does that square with your claim if the trend has in fact been increasing(hint not actually proven)
Jach 8y ago
This might be the point of disagreement... Let's agree to assume that many disasters, natural and social, have befallen humanity over its existence, and that some of them are going to increase in frequency proportional with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can we also agree that humanity has gotten dramatically better at mitigating the negative impacts of various disasters, and especially over the time frame of people who are currently alive? If we're good on both of those, then I think the disagreement is whether we'll continue to dramatically improve or not. In other words, if we can drive the total negative cost (premature deaths, property damage, civil unrest, etc.) of certain disasters towards 0 by improving our response/mitigation capability, then it won't really matter if they come at an increased rate, the additional impact is a rounding error. If you agree with this, or see how one could agree with it, then maybe you can see why it's frustrating to hear people freaking out about climate change being an existential threat (it can be, given Venus, but that planet had no humans opposing it) which will doom our planet unless and only unless global CO2 is reduced (at some cost, perhaps partly of our species' ability to improve our mitigations fast enough).