4 ms·

The article points to a specific instance in which, it argues, the NYT has misled on climate change. Are you disputing that instance? Or are you okay with the

The article points to a specific instance in which, it argues, the NYT has misled on climate change. Are you disputing that instance? Or are you okay with the NYT misleading if you think it's for a good cause? I think this is where a lot of the pushback regarding climate change comes from. Saying "Southern Vietname will be underwater" is not the same as saying "Southern Vietnam will be below sea level". That kind of jump, when it happens over and over again, only results in people mistrusting the media (and, by proxy, "scientists"). > Building dykes to product numerous coastal areas may well be a good answer, but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project. Media reports will obviously need to be part of that since people will need to understand why their taxes are going up and why the government is taking their land. I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. I think I'm usually on Lomborg's side: I expect that people will solve these problems (rising sea levels) in fits and starts, as people's lives become more and more affected. I suspect that any other approach isn't politically feasible (and is also, perhaps, undesirable). Once you acknowledge this perspective, quotes like "the real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty" start to make more sense. I understand this perspective is dissatisfying to many people, especially scientifically-minded, highly educated people. But I don't see any way around it.

jmull 7y ago
Well, that times article actually does point out that building seawalls and other barriers is the way to protect the areas that will be below sea level, so Lomborg and the Times seems to share a lot of common ground on this. > I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. No. I don't care whether there's a top-down or bottom up solution. My point talking about taxes and land was actually about the importance of the media in informing people about the problem. I only mentioned taxes and eminent domain because that's how large capital project usually work. If there's a bottom up way that will get the job done better, I'm all for it. Point is, the media is still important for informing people. If they don't understand what's going on they won't have any reason to do anything. No matter how it's done, it's going to require large amounts of resources and people aren't going to expend them without a reason. > I understand this perspective is dissatisfying... I wouldn't say dissatisfying. It's just a meaningless approach. We have been and continue to work to eliminate poverty and I fully agree we should keep doing so. Great. Now let's move on: how will we deal with the rising water levels around the globe? If it's build barriers, then how will that work? E.g., what will it cost? Who will do it? When do they need to start? Are there alternatives that may be cheaper or better?

jmull 7y ago

Well, that times article actually does point out that building seawalls and other barriers is the way to protect the areas that will be below sea level, so Lomborg and the Times seems to share a lot of common ground on this. > I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. No. I don't care whether there's a top-down or bottom up solution. My point talking about taxes and land was actually about the importance of the media in informing people about the problem. I only mentioned taxes and eminent domain because that's how large capital project usually work. If there's a bottom up way that will get the job done better, I'm all for it. Point is, the media is still important for informing people. If they don't understand what's going on they won't have any reason to do anything. No matter how it's done, it's going to require large amounts of resources and people aren't going to expend them without a reason. > I understand this perspective is dissatisfying... I wouldn't say dissatisfying. It's just a meaningless approach. We have been and continue to work to eliminate poverty and I fully agree we should keep doing so. Great. Now let's move on: how will we deal with the rising water levels around the globe? If it's build barriers, then how will that work? E.g., what will it cost? Who will do it? When do they need to start? Are there alternatives that may be cheaper or better?