3 ms·

A lot of people are only concerned about the time they are alive on this planet. To them, global warming is free to kill the earth after they are long gone.

gwright 7y ago
Lots of things might happen due to increased temperatures. The Earth dying is not one of them (hint: it has been much warmer in the geological past).
- c0nducktr 7y ago
  It's quite clear that "kill the earth" is figurative language. Being pedantic like this doesn't really add to the conversation.
  - gwright 7y ago
    Except that this type of language is endemic in climate discussion and is often enough accepted at face value and not recognized as hyperbolic language. In my experience there are people who view this language as an accurate description of what global warming models predict (with a high level of confidence) -- the end of life on Earth and runaway greenhouse effect resulting in the Earth turning into another Venus. Even in the realm of "figurative language", it is ridiculously over the top and over used. It adds nothing to a discussion that is chock-a-block full of over the top assertions.
    - Daishiman 7y ago
      It's satisfyingly close for all intents and purposes. The change of there being a collapse of most of the significant ecosystems isn't trivial. The change of mass migrations and conflicts over resources unlike anything we've ever seen before are no longer trivial. Out of all the hills to die on in the "debate" over climate change, this is about the most ridiculous, pedantic, and useless. How many millions of dead people would you like before considering it adequate language?
      - gwright 7y ago
        So you don't thing it was "figurative language"? You view my dystopian description as "close" to your understanding of what is predicted? [edited because I made the mistake of thinking the parent was the author of the comment I originally commented on] You seem to be working from the assumption that the apocalyptic predictions are a certainty and that humanity will be unable to adapt, that climate change is an existential threat. I tend to think that a linear (or worse) extrapolation of warming trends is unscientific and unlikely, that the effects of current modest warming will not be apocalyptic (which still leaves plenty of room for various catastrophes), and that human ingenuity will be able to mitigate the worst effects. In short I don't think global warming is an existential threat to humanity or the Earth. The problem with apocalyptic, existential threat language is that it can be leveraged to advocate for or justify extremely radical private and public actions as well as governmental power grabs. I'm more worried about radical "ends-justifies-the-means" people and the side-effects of giving government more power than I am of the effects of global warming. Sure, I could be wrong, but over 100 million people have been killed by misguided governments historically and to me that is a much more tangible threat.
        Daishiman 7y ago
        > I tend to think that a linear (or worse) extrapolation of warming trends is unscientific and unlikely, that the effects of current modest warming will not be apocalyptic (which still leaves plenty of room for various catastrophes), and that human ingenuity will be able to mitigate the worst effects. In short I don't think global warming is an existential threat to humanity or the Earth. Wait so now you're more of an authority than the already-conservative IPCC models which do not account for the ever worsening effects of sea ice and the methane feedback loop? We're already observing in real time the loss of many ecosystems due to climate change, and we're far from the temperatures proposed by the BUA scenarios. You're saying that a linear warming trend is unscientific when the entirety of the evidence at hand is showing that an increase way above linear is most likely, and already being observed. So what, you're expecting that the continued, non-linear increases in CO2 concentrations are going to magically not work with all the known feedback loops?
    - Koshkin 7y ago
      Do we know for sure that there is no life on Venus? (The planet itself is far from “dead.”)
      - gwright 7y ago
        Well that was as close as I could get to a dead planet without describing something like the demise of Vulcan in the Star Trek reboot, which seemed like a bit much even in the realm of hyperbolic descriptions.
- triceratops 7y ago
  That is a technically correct but useless statement. If life continues to exist but human civilization is wiped out (a possible outcome) is that good?
  - gwright 7y ago
    Of course it isn't good but my point was that hyperbolic language doesn't add information to the conversation and I think it actually causes people to do things that are dangerous. Claiming human civilization is going to be "wiped out" is just another version of crazy over the top language that isn't connected to reasonable predictions about climate change. But radical people will latch on to that language and use it to justify all sorts of craziness.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

gwright 7y ago

Lots of things might happen due to increased temperatures. The Earth dying is not one of them (hint: it has been much warmer in the geological past).

c0nducktr 7y ago
It's quite clear that "kill the earth" is figurative language. Being pedantic like this doesn't really add to the conversation.
- gwright 7y ago
  Except that this type of language is endemic in climate discussion and is often enough accepted at face value and not recognized as hyperbolic language. In my experience there are people who view this language as an accurate description of what global warming models predict (with a high level of confidence) -- the end of life on Earth and runaway greenhouse effect resulting in the Earth turning into another Venus. Even in the realm of "figurative language", it is ridiculously over the top and over used. It adds nothing to a discussion that is chock-a-block full of over the top assertions.
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    It's satisfyingly close for all intents and purposes. The change of there being a collapse of most of the significant ecosystems isn't trivial. The change of mass migrations and conflicts over resources unlike anything we've ever seen before are no longer trivial. Out of all the hills to die on in the "debate" over climate change, this is about the most ridiculous, pedantic, and useless. How many millions of dead people would you like before considering it adequate language?
    - gwright 7y ago
      So you don't thing it was "figurative language"? You view my dystopian description as "close" to your understanding of what is predicted? [edited because I made the mistake of thinking the parent was the author of the comment I originally commented on] You seem to be working from the assumption that the apocalyptic predictions are a certainty and that humanity will be unable to adapt, that climate change is an existential threat. I tend to think that a linear (or worse) extrapolation of warming trends is unscientific and unlikely, that the effects of current modest warming will not be apocalyptic (which still leaves plenty of room for various catastrophes), and that human ingenuity will be able to mitigate the worst effects. In short I don't think global warming is an existential threat to humanity or the Earth. The problem with apocalyptic, existential threat language is that it can be leveraged to advocate for or justify extremely radical private and public actions as well as governmental power grabs. I'm more worried about radical "ends-justifies-the-means" people and the side-effects of giving government more power than I am of the effects of global warming. Sure, I could be wrong, but over 100 million people have been killed by misguided governments historically and to me that is a much more tangible threat.
      - Daishiman 7y ago
        > I tend to think that a linear (or worse) extrapolation of warming trends is unscientific and unlikely, that the effects of current modest warming will not be apocalyptic (which still leaves plenty of room for various catastrophes), and that human ingenuity will be able to mitigate the worst effects. In short I don't think global warming is an existential threat to humanity or the Earth. Wait so now you're more of an authority than the already-conservative IPCC models which do not account for the ever worsening effects of sea ice and the methane feedback loop? We're already observing in real time the loss of many ecosystems due to climate change, and we're far from the temperatures proposed by the BUA scenarios. You're saying that a linear warming trend is unscientific when the entirety of the evidence at hand is showing that an increase way above linear is most likely, and already being observed. So what, you're expecting that the continued, non-linear increases in CO2 concentrations are going to magically not work with all the known feedback loops?
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    Do we know for sure that there is no life on Venus? (The planet itself is far from “dead.”)
    - gwright 7y ago
      Well that was as close as I could get to a dead planet without describing something like the demise of Vulcan in the Star Trek reboot, which seemed like a bit much even in the realm of hyperbolic descriptions.
triceratops 7y ago
That is a technically correct but useless statement. If life continues to exist but human civilization is wiped out (a possible outcome) is that good?
- gwright 7y ago
  Of course it isn't good but my point was that hyperbolic language doesn't add information to the conversation and I think it actually causes people to do things that are dangerous. Claiming human civilization is going to be "wiped out" is just another version of crazy over the top language that isn't connected to reasonable predictions about climate change. But radical people will latch on to that language and use it to justify all sorts of craziness.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]