12 ms·

It's really pretty simple - the prognosticators of doom have a very poor track record. I posted this elsewhere in the thread, so apologize for the spam for any

It's really pretty simple - the prognosticators of doom have a very poor track record. I posted this elsewhere in the thread, so apologize for the spam for any readers who saw it twice: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp... Personally, I don't believe climate change is a hoax. There's ample evidence indicating climate change is real. But I am certainly convinced climate crisis is mostly nonsense. And I believe most "solutions" proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty. And thus, statements like this one you made, from my point-of-view, are mostly hysterical: Ever and ever again when I see some new dire study about how our predatory exploitation of our ecological support system is degrading its capability to actually support us, I think to myself: "This is it. Now they just have to finally start supporting measures to stop killing ourselves." But I always get disappointed - there are still way too many people that absolutely fail to grasp how terminal a situation we're rushing into.

meagain3 7y ago
Thank you very much for this very valuable link
ianleeclark 7y ago
> And I believe most "solutions" proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty. I think this is the most telling answer any of us, who stand mouth agape at the inaction, will ever receive: rather than join together in any semblance of community to overcome a common problem, we have to walk headfirst into knowable horrors, so that some can continue with their myth of individual liberty. All I can think of is the past few weeks where posters here on HN quickly wrote off any mention of covid-19 being anything worse than the common flu that no one ought to worry too much about it.
- fanatic2pope 7y ago
  The covid crisis is climate change set to fast forward. The laughable CEI types who decry "prognosticators of doom" will be the toilet paper hoarders of climate change, angrily demanding government bailouts as the ripple effects of decreased global productivity and increased instability bite.
- miscPerson 7y ago
  Authoritarian/collectivist governments have killed around 100M people in the past century; a number comparable to the predictions of climate crises over the next century. There’s a reason people insist on societies based around individual liberty and citizen empowerment — they work! They’re what has led to the greatest increase in human well-being the world has ever seen. Suggesting authoritarianism in response to climate change is simply creating a second problem — and one that’s unlikely to solve the first. So yes, people resist you trying a repeatedly failed idea again, just so you can be seen to be doing something.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    I don't know why people see the only way to collective struggle being through an authoritarian battering ram. I think this says far more about you than you realize: the only way in which you could possibly imagine yourself working with another person is at the barrel of a gun.
    - trentnix 7y ago
      And your plans for those who won't work with you (for whatever reason) to address the collective struggle are...?
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        I'm in favor of any solution that even so much as attempts to price-in externalities into the market. Examples are carbon taxes and tariffs. Now what's your solution that doesn't tread on my individual liberty?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
linuxftw 7y ago
I'm in the camp of climate change is real, the human impact is grossly overstated. More importantly, we have bigger, more pressing issues. #1 is pollution, especially water pollution. We're still dumping toxic chemicals all over the planet. #2 is water management. On the east coast of the US, we're tearing up millions of acres of farm land to build suburbs while California is trying to grow food in the desert. Aquifers are being depleted in several states. There's a real looming disaster and it's got nothing to do with CO2.
- esarbe 7y ago
  Well. According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. (Did you know that at about +5°Celsius the phytoplankton will start dying off? ) So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) So, yes, there are many other consequences of our predatory exploitation of our ecosphere. Many that are almost as pressing as the climate crisis. But just almost.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. > And it's starting to release methane Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. > we have a massive temperature increase I object to this statement. > at an unprecedented speed I also object to this statement. > Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener We're building a wall.
xtian 7y ago
Sorry, your source is a place called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute"? I'm willing to bet your principle of "individual liberty" extends no further than your own skin and that you will transition seamlessly to eco-fascist ideology as soon as it becomes necessary.
esarbe 7y ago
I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. What we're currently doing is externalization of costs on a gargantuan scale. We're dumping humongous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and are ignoring the problems that causes for the whole ecosystem. I fail to see how you can try to defend our current climate regime from a libertarian perspective. A libertarian should be outraged by this appropriation of the common good, an infraction on the freedom of us all. And the damage done to our biological life support system is devastating! We've wiped out 60% percents of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since the 1970 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary... https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary...). We've killed about 30% of the insect population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations Phytoplankton has been reduced by 50% since the 1950s https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 . You know, that's the stuff that produces our oxygen (https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-... https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-...). An increase in temperature of about 5°C and more will probably kill off most phytoplankton. Damages like these are infractions on our freedom to live healthily, they even encroach on our most basic right; the right to reproduce, endowed to us by our nature as biological organisms. I don't think inaction on the climate crisis is supported by a libertarian worldview.
- trentnix 7y ago
  I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. You're creating a false choice - support action as you define it or be in favor of destroying Earth. Indeed, if action only comes in the form of massive taxation and central control then yes, I'm willing to take my chances. I believe any solutions that involve massive taxation and central control will result in massive warfare. Taxes and regulation might mitigate pollution in the first-world if you manage to get your way, but what about China? What about India? What about other emerging players? Are you prepared to force China to dismantle its coal plants? Are you prepared to force India to cripple its means of production? Are you prepared to force Iran and Russia and Saudi Arabia to stop using petroleum? And if you are, how much destruction will be wrought in the process? In summary I believe solutions that involve massive taxation, central control, and forcefully curbing human behavior will end in more misery than doing nothing at all. Given that, of all the possible solutions I've heard curbing human behavior is the least likely to succeed. If a savior is necessary, it will be technology or nothing.
specialist 7y ago
"climate crisis is mostly nonsense." For comparison, what are examples of actual crisis (sic), past, present, or future? "And I believe most 'solutions' proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty." Do you oppose China's handling of COVID-19? Italy's? If yes, how would you handle it?
ForHackernews 7y ago
Isn't this just survivorship bias? If the doomsayers were right, then you wouldn't be here to be smug about their predictions being wrong. As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if a planet-killing asteroid were inbound. The doom-sayers would still sound like cranks ("in the 1970s they said the population bomb would kill us all") and normal life would continue right up until the point that everyone died. Humanity is arrogant about its ability to survive crises because it has taken action and survived previous major crises, but the first time we get it really wrong will also be the last time.
- rwallace 7y ago
  You could use that argument to prove Earth is about to be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass. I mean sure, there is actual evidence that global warming is real whereas Vogons are not, but if you want to make a case, you need to point to the actual evidence, not just handwave about survivorship bias.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    My point is that dismissing "doomsayers" just because we've averted actual doom thus far is specious.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

meagain3 7y ago

Thank you very much for this very valuable link

ianleeclark 7y ago

> And I believe most "solutions" proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty. I think this is the most telling answer any of us, who stand mouth agape at the inaction, will ever receive: rather than join together in any semblance of community to overcome a common problem, we have to walk headfirst into knowable horrors, so that some can continue with their myth of individual liberty. All I can think of is the past few weeks where posters here on HN quickly wrote off any mention of covid-19 being anything worse than the common flu that no one ought to worry too much about it.

fanatic2pope 7y ago
The covid crisis is climate change set to fast forward. The laughable CEI types who decry "prognosticators of doom" will be the toilet paper hoarders of climate change, angrily demanding government bailouts as the ripple effects of decreased global productivity and increased instability bite.
miscPerson 7y ago
Authoritarian/collectivist governments have killed around 100M people in the past century; a number comparable to the predictions of climate crises over the next century. There’s a reason people insist on societies based around individual liberty and citizen empowerment — they work! They’re what has led to the greatest increase in human well-being the world has ever seen. Suggesting authoritarianism in response to climate change is simply creating a second problem — and one that’s unlikely to solve the first. So yes, people resist you trying a repeatedly failed idea again, just so you can be seen to be doing something.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  I don't know why people see the only way to collective struggle being through an authoritarian battering ram. I think this says far more about you than you realize: the only way in which you could possibly imagine yourself working with another person is at the barrel of a gun.
  - trentnix 7y ago
    And your plans for those who won't work with you (for whatever reason) to address the collective struggle are...?
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      I'm in favor of any solution that even so much as attempts to price-in externalities into the market. Examples are carbon taxes and tariffs. Now what's your solution that doesn't tread on my individual liberty?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

linuxftw 7y ago

I'm in the camp of climate change is real, the human impact is grossly overstated. More importantly, we have bigger, more pressing issues. #1 is pollution, especially water pollution. We're still dumping toxic chemicals all over the planet. #2 is water management. On the east coast of the US, we're tearing up millions of acres of farm land to build suburbs while California is trying to grow food in the desert. Aquifers are being depleted in several states. There's a real looming disaster and it's got nothing to do with CO2.

esarbe 7y ago
Well. According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. (Did you know that at about +5°Celsius the phytoplankton will start dying off? ) So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) So, yes, there are many other consequences of our predatory exploitation of our ecosphere. Many that are almost as pressing as the climate crisis. But just almost.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. > And it's starting to release methane Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. > we have a massive temperature increase I object to this statement. > at an unprecedented speed I also object to this statement. > Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener We're building a wall.

xtian 7y ago

Sorry, your source is a place called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute"? I'm willing to bet your principle of "individual liberty" extends no further than your own skin and that you will transition seamlessly to eco-fascist ideology as soon as it becomes necessary.

esarbe 7y ago

I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. What we're currently doing is externalization of costs on a gargantuan scale. We're dumping humongous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and are ignoring the problems that causes for the whole ecosystem. I fail to see how you can try to defend our current climate regime from a libertarian perspective. A libertarian should be outraged by this appropriation of the common good, an infraction on the freedom of us all. And the damage done to our biological life support system is devastating! We've wiped out 60% percents of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since the 1970 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary... https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary...). We've killed about 30% of the insect population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations Phytoplankton has been reduced by 50% since the 1950s https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 . You know, that's the stuff that produces our oxygen (https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-... https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-...). An increase in temperature of about 5°C and more will probably kill off most phytoplankton. Damages like these are infractions on our freedom to live healthily, they even encroach on our most basic right; the right to reproduce, endowed to us by our nature as biological organisms. I don't think inaction on the climate crisis is supported by a libertarian worldview.

trentnix 7y ago
I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. You're creating a false choice - support action as you define it or be in favor of destroying Earth. Indeed, if action only comes in the form of massive taxation and central control then yes, I'm willing to take my chances. I believe any solutions that involve massive taxation and central control will result in massive warfare. Taxes and regulation might mitigate pollution in the first-world if you manage to get your way, but what about China? What about India? What about other emerging players? Are you prepared to force China to dismantle its coal plants? Are you prepared to force India to cripple its means of production? Are you prepared to force Iran and Russia and Saudi Arabia to stop using petroleum? And if you are, how much destruction will be wrought in the process? In summary I believe solutions that involve massive taxation, central control, and forcefully curbing human behavior will end in more misery than doing nothing at all. Given that, of all the possible solutions I've heard curbing human behavior is the least likely to succeed. If a savior is necessary, it will be technology or nothing.

specialist 7y ago

"climate crisis is mostly nonsense." For comparison, what are examples of actual crisis (sic), past, present, or future? "And I believe most 'solutions' proposed are an antithesis to individual liberty." Do you oppose China's handling of COVID-19? Italy's? If yes, how would you handle it?

ForHackernews 7y ago

Isn't this just survivorship bias? If the doomsayers were right, then you wouldn't be here to be smug about their predictions being wrong. As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if a planet-killing asteroid were inbound. The doom-sayers would still sound like cranks ("in the 1970s they said the population bomb would kill us all") and normal life would continue right up until the point that everyone died. Humanity is arrogant about its ability to survive crises because it has taken action and survived previous major crises, but the first time we get it really wrong will also be the last time.

rwallace 7y ago
You could use that argument to prove Earth is about to be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass. I mean sure, there is actual evidence that global warming is real whereas Vogons are not, but if you want to make a case, you need to point to the actual evidence, not just handwave about survivorship bias.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  My point is that dismissing "doomsayers" just because we've averted actual doom thus far is specious.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]