9 ms·

Covid-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse

50 points by a_imho 6y ago

MuffinFlavored 6y ago
what are your thoughts on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
- throwaway0865 6y ago
  I hope this is sarcasm.
- sputr 6y ago
  This seems like a good start: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
- danbolt 6y ago
  The first YouTube comment below the video is a good start!
- throwaway0865 6y ago
  I hope sharing a Prager U video is sarcasm.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Honestly I burst out in laughter as soon as he said "as it is now called climate change". The term climate change originates from a 1956 paper [0]. If you want more substance than appeals to emotion I would recommend you to watch potholer54 instead. The video you linked offers basically no information to confirm what he is saying other than "trust me guys". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QggRSjOSkbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QggRSjOSkbI The other thing that really made me angry is that the PragerU video claims is that scientists are predicting CO2 related warming to get grant money. Well, there is no shortage of wrong skeptics betting on global cooling as well: https://youtu.be/h6eswiI3KLc https://youtu.be/h6eswiI3KLc Global cooling gets press coverage every year even though it's almost impossible to happen. The truth is probably that whatever news agencies are covering is just random nonsense in both directions. Either they predict some catastrophe or say that it's not happening. [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490....
bsaul 6y ago
otoh : it seems to me covid models used to dictate public policies proved to be off by at least one ( if not two ) orders of magnitude. Countries that didn't confined ( brazil and sweden) didn't show that much of a difference compared to some others that did (france). The spread and impact of the virus proved to be extremely hard to understand and model correctly. Which of course, should have people wonder if climate change model couldn't also be off by orders of magnitude ? Now of course because one thing proves to be hard to model doesn't mean all are. But looking a the history of public climate catastrophic announcement, how do we know that this time is the time when models of immensely complex phenomenon will be correct ?
- danbolt 6y ago
  I think the difference here is that climate change has been studied for decades, meanwhile COVID-19 is more or less a new phenomenon since Christmas. The former has had a lot more time to be observed and have hypothesis’ tested. What’s your guess that our climate change predictions are off? And by how much?
  - bsaul 6y ago
    i think the number of times we've seen articles saying how there's going to be no ice anymore in 5/10 years on the poles, during the last 25 years, should be a hint that estimates aren't even reliable on a 10 years time range. I wouldn't be too afraid when the same people predict horrible things in 100 years. i sometimes have the feeling that those models don't do much more that extrapolate exponentials and lines, without any kind of comprehension of the underlying phenomenons ( at least that's my feeling with covid models.. i know climate models are actually better than that)
    - FzguLzLA5BDxVC 6y ago
      I've never seen a reasonable (or any, in fact) person claim there's going to be "no more ice" on really any timeline. Could you link one of these studies? Sometimes people will make claims that are wrong, but I would think twice before doubting the consensus of (practically) the entire scientific community (the consensus being climate change is real, and is real bad. To the point that we need to do something immediately)
pcdoodle 6y ago
F(_) Gates. We don't care about your opinions.
- nscalf 6y ago
  Actually, I care about his opinions, don’t put your ridiculous opinion on all of us. Bill Gates is an intelligent person, working on hard problems to improve the world. You should listen when he talks.
  - UhDev 6y ago
    lol. Have you tried thinking for yourself?
- 0_gravitas 6y ago
  You have posted some variation of this on every post he's been mentioned, how do you think this advances any kind of discussion?
LatteLazy 6y ago
I don't get why people are still underselling this. Coronavirus will be a fucking walk in the park compared to the climate change that is already inevitable. You think a few million dead and 6months of impaired economic activity is a bad deal compared with what we're in for. Why are the major, well informed sources defacto lying about it? In case anyone wonders, conservative estimates put climate change at 150k deaths a year and rising... In 2009. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-health/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-an...
- belval 6y ago
  FWIW, people are underselling this probably because people will give up if you tell them the doomsday scenario. Making it just terrible enough that people can compare, without talking about straight cataclysm helps ensuring that people at least read the entire article.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    Maybe. I think it's also because the worst direct consequences (sea level rise induced flooding and loss of arable land, wet bulb temperatures that will kill you if you're exposed for more than an hour) will mainly hit other people in a belt from Northern Brazil through the Sahel, the Middle East and Asia to China up to Harbin. Pretty much all of those people are invisible to westerners. But taking action means making your lifestyle worse: Never flying. Avoiding using a car as much as possible. Making meat a special occasion food (once a year). Buying things that last two or four decades instead of fashion items. "I'm all right, Jack" is the thinking.
    - belval 6y ago
      I would say that's the reason why most people are not taking radical changes, but I doubt that's why the mainstream medias aren't talking about the nightmare scenario, which is what the comment was referring to (I think).
    - missedthecue 6y ago
acvny 6y ago
Mr Bill please share your $100 000 000 000 so that we can buy 3 333 333 electric cars.
- 0_gravitas 6y ago
  This genre of comments are either intentionally disingenuous or simply significantly misguided. There has been little to suggest that Gates isn't currently trying to help make the world a bit better off. If he thought that would really solve all the world's problems than I'm fairly sure he'd give it a shot, but even you and I know it would do little to truly halt climate change on the large scale. CC is also not his only target of course. Perhaps Gates is just a bit more thoughtful in managing his investments.
  - acvny 6y ago
    The point was that the article is just blah blah blah. The usual rhetoric without any concrete proposals. So I offered a concrete solution. Looks like some readers didn't appreciate the humor.
    - 0_gravitas 6y ago
      (or lack thereof)
anarchop 6y ago
Reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I
cheezebubba 6y ago
"Within the next 40 years, increases in global temperatures are projected to raise global mortality rates by the same amount—14 deaths per 100,000." This is the first I've heard this kind of statistic. Does anybody have a reference for where this came from?
ffggvv 6y ago
he says climate change deaths will be 14 deaths per 100,000. how exactly will it kill people? is it increased mosquitos and malaria?
- Valgrim 6y ago
  Heat waves, for starters. In 2003, a heat wave in Europe had a death toll over 70000. In 2010, more than 50000 people died in Russia during a heat wave. Those will become more common and worse. Then you have crop failures, due to drought and extreme weather. Food and water insecurity will force hundreds of millions to migrate, fueling conflicts. You're also right that insect-borne diseases are going to spread more. Prepare for the worst, but work toward the best.
thelastname 6y ago
Still, Vista was the worst.

50 points by a_imho 6y ago

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

what are your thoughts on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

throwaway0865 6y ago
I hope this is sarcasm.
sputr 6y ago
This seems like a good start: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
danbolt 6y ago
The first YouTube comment below the video is a good start!
throwaway0865 6y ago
I hope sharing a Prager U video is sarcasm.
imtringued 6y ago
Honestly I burst out in laughter as soon as he said "as it is now called climate change". The term climate change originates from a 1956 paper [0]. If you want more substance than appeals to emotion I would recommend you to watch potholer54 instead. The video you linked offers basically no information to confirm what he is saying other than "trust me guys". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QggRSjOSkbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QggRSjOSkbI The other thing that really made me angry is that the PragerU video claims is that scientists are predicting CO2 related warming to get grant money. Well, there is no shortage of wrong skeptics betting on global cooling as well: https://youtu.be/h6eswiI3KLc https://youtu.be/h6eswiI3KLc Global cooling gets press coverage every year even though it's almost impossible to happen. The truth is probably that whatever news agencies are covering is just random nonsense in both directions. Either they predict some catastrophe or say that it's not happening. [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490....

bsaul 6y ago

otoh : it seems to me covid models used to dictate public policies proved to be off by at least one ( if not two ) orders of magnitude. Countries that didn't confined ( brazil and sweden) didn't show that much of a difference compared to some others that did (france). The spread and impact of the virus proved to be extremely hard to understand and model correctly. Which of course, should have people wonder if climate change model couldn't also be off by orders of magnitude ? Now of course because one thing proves to be hard to model doesn't mean all are. But looking a the history of public climate catastrophic announcement, how do we know that this time is the time when models of immensely complex phenomenon will be correct ?

danbolt 6y ago
I think the difference here is that climate change has been studied for decades, meanwhile COVID-19 is more or less a new phenomenon since Christmas. The former has had a lot more time to be observed and have hypothesis’ tested. What’s your guess that our climate change predictions are off? And by how much?
- bsaul 6y ago
  i think the number of times we've seen articles saying how there's going to be no ice anymore in 5/10 years on the poles, during the last 25 years, should be a hint that estimates aren't even reliable on a 10 years time range. I wouldn't be too afraid when the same people predict horrible things in 100 years. i sometimes have the feeling that those models don't do much more that extrapolate exponentials and lines, without any kind of comprehension of the underlying phenomenons ( at least that's my feeling with covid models.. i know climate models are actually better than that)
  - FzguLzLA5BDxVC 6y ago
    I've never seen a reasonable (or any, in fact) person claim there's going to be "no more ice" on really any timeline. Could you link one of these studies? Sometimes people will make claims that are wrong, but I would think twice before doubting the consensus of (practically) the entire scientific community (the consensus being climate change is real, and is real bad. To the point that we need to do something immediately)

pcdoodle 6y ago

F(_) Gates. We don't care about your opinions.

nscalf 6y ago
Actually, I care about his opinions, don’t put your ridiculous opinion on all of us. Bill Gates is an intelligent person, working on hard problems to improve the world. You should listen when he talks.
- UhDev 6y ago
  lol. Have you tried thinking for yourself?
0_gravitas 6y ago
You have posted some variation of this on every post he's been mentioned, how do you think this advances any kind of discussion?

LatteLazy 6y ago

I don't get why people are still underselling this. Coronavirus will be a fucking walk in the park compared to the climate change that is already inevitable. You think a few million dead and 6months of impaired economic activity is a bad deal compared with what we're in for. Why are the major, well informed sources defacto lying about it? In case anyone wonders, conservative estimates put climate change at 150k deaths a year and rising... In 2009. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-health/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-an...

belval 6y ago
FWIW, people are underselling this probably because people will give up if you tell them the doomsday scenario. Making it just terrible enough that people can compare, without talking about straight cataclysm helps ensuring that people at least read the entire article.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  Maybe. I think it's also because the worst direct consequences (sea level rise induced flooding and loss of arable land, wet bulb temperatures that will kill you if you're exposed for more than an hour) will mainly hit other people in a belt from Northern Brazil through the Sahel, the Middle East and Asia to China up to Harbin. Pretty much all of those people are invisible to westerners. But taking action means making your lifestyle worse: Never flying. Avoiding using a car as much as possible. Making meat a special occasion food (once a year). Buying things that last two or four decades instead of fashion items. "I'm all right, Jack" is the thinking.
  - belval 6y ago
    I would say that's the reason why most people are not taking radical changes, but I doubt that's why the mainstream medias aren't talking about the nightmare scenario, which is what the comment was referring to (I think).
  - missedthecue 6y ago

acvny 6y ago

Mr Bill please share your $100 000 000 000 so that we can buy 3 333 333 electric cars.

0_gravitas 6y ago
This genre of comments are either intentionally disingenuous or simply significantly misguided. There has been little to suggest that Gates isn't currently trying to help make the world a bit better off. If he thought that would really solve all the world's problems than I'm fairly sure he'd give it a shot, but even you and I know it would do little to truly halt climate change on the large scale. CC is also not his only target of course. Perhaps Gates is just a bit more thoughtful in managing his investments.
- acvny 6y ago
  The point was that the article is just blah blah blah. The usual rhetoric without any concrete proposals. So I offered a concrete solution. Looks like some readers didn't appreciate the humor.
  - 0_gravitas 6y ago
    (or lack thereof)

anarchop 6y ago

Reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I

cheezebubba 6y ago

"Within the next 40 years, increases in global temperatures are projected to raise global mortality rates by the same amount—14 deaths per 100,000." This is the first I've heard this kind of statistic. Does anybody have a reference for where this came from?

ffggvv 6y ago

he says climate change deaths will be 14 deaths per 100,000. how exactly will it kill people? is it increased mosquitos and malaria?

Valgrim 6y ago
Heat waves, for starters. In 2003, a heat wave in Europe had a death toll over 70000. In 2010, more than 50000 people died in Russia during a heat wave. Those will become more common and worse. Then you have crop failures, due to drought and extreme weather. Food and water insecurity will force hundreds of millions to migrate, fueling conflicts. You're also right that insect-borne diseases are going to spread more. Prepare for the worst, but work toward the best.

thelastname 6y ago

Still, Vista was the worst.