4 ms·

When “scientists” are openly pushing for particular solutions (always involving massive government control and global wealth redistribution), they are politiciz

When “scientists” are openly pushing for particular solutions (always involving massive government control and global wealth redistribution), they are politicizing it too. When the “green” movement also opposes the best alternative energy, nuclear, it’s worth being very suspicious. That is of course all orthogonal to whether it’s actually real and preventable and worth acting on. Though that last question requires expertise beyond climate science. It also requires a fine understanding of economics and international power politics. When climate scientists pretend to have those too, people should be skeptical.

TearsInTheRain 6y ago
> When “scientists” are openly pushing for particular solutions (always involving massive government control and global wealth redistribution), they are politicizing it too. Man the number of times I see climate change presented as a racial justice problem is nauseating
- gbear605 6y ago
  It depends on what you mean - climate change is already affecting some regions of the world significantly while not affecting others at all. Climate change was a significant factor in causing the Syrian civil war [1], while I haven't been affected other than having some hot summers and mild winters. So yes, some areas - and thus some ethnic groups - are more affected. On top of that, people who are poorer are disproportionately affected by any negative effect because they have fewer resources and are thus less able to deal with it. Addressing that is social justice. [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112.abs...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    A country with hyper-growth in population with a very strong group-identity culture that's internally fractured into a large majority being brutally ruled by a small minority, surrounded by regional powers that are happy for any opportunity to wage proxy wars, becoming the focal point for global powers to wage proxy wars... The drought certainly didn't help and it may well have been the straw the broke the camel's back, but it wouldn't have been a major issue had they not quadrupled their population within 50 years, had a more modern economy that allowed for wide-spread participation, had a less tribal society with a democratic government and weren't in the neighborhood of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
dlivingston 6y ago
As usual, the loudest voices are not the most rational. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, push for the solutions that you desire.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 6y ago
I personally believe in manmade climate change but when I read about things like the "global warming pause" I get concerned.[1] About 5 years ago there was a lot of discussion about the "pause" in the warming trend between 1998 and 2012. Nature devoted an entire issue to it.[2] But then I start reading that the pause never happened.[3] And if you read the wikipedia page, it sounds like there is still a lot of controversy within the climate change community whether or not global warming actually paused. I'm not a climate scientist, so maybe I'm missing something (happy to be educated), but shouldn't we be able to tell pretty definitively whether or not the planet had been warming over that decade? Isn't there a standard way to measure global temperatures? It seems like it would be difficult to spot trends if how you're measuring it is changing over time. I read about how "if you interpolate arctic temperatures" or "account for ocean temperatures" the "pause" disappears. But how do we know the new analysis is right and the old one was wrong? What's if it's the opposite? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus [2]https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [3]https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-hiatus-pause-never-happened-studies-explain-climate-change-risbey-oreskes-mann https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-h...
- clusterfish 6y ago
  I would think us engineers would appreciate the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet. It's not just raw temperature readings from buoys. Incremental improvement of models and some debate to sort out the reasons for temporary inconsistencies is to be expected in science. None of this is really any excuse to be doubting climate change in general, or the severity thereof. All of that is just politics, not science. Scientists know that our models are just as likely to underestimate the effects of climate change as they are to overestimate them. It is only politically motivated opinionistas that focus exclusively on one of those possibilities.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I had a career in science so I completely understand how models that predict the future are refined over time, that isn't concerning at all. Saying "we predict temperatures will rise between 0.5C and 2.0C this century" is just smart science. But my comment isn't around a future prediction, this is measuring the temperature right now. You mention "the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet", which I can understand is complex, but ignore "net energy absorption" for now, let's just focus on "what was the average temperature last year". Would I be correct saying we're still not sure how best to get that data?
sebmellen 6y ago
I can't emphasize France's success with nuclear power and the magic of thorium enough.

TearsInTheRain 6y ago

> When “scientists” are openly pushing for particular solutions (always involving massive government control and global wealth redistribution), they are politicizing it too. Man the number of times I see climate change presented as a racial justice problem is nauseating

gbear605 6y ago
It depends on what you mean - climate change is already affecting some regions of the world significantly while not affecting others at all. Climate change was a significant factor in causing the Syrian civil war [1], while I haven't been affected other than having some hot summers and mild winters. So yes, some areas - and thus some ethnic groups - are more affected. On top of that, people who are poorer are disproportionately affected by any negative effect because they have fewer resources and are thus less able to deal with it. Addressing that is social justice. [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112.abs...
- luckylion 6y ago
  A country with hyper-growth in population with a very strong group-identity culture that's internally fractured into a large majority being brutally ruled by a small minority, surrounded by regional powers that are happy for any opportunity to wage proxy wars, becoming the focal point for global powers to wage proxy wars... The drought certainly didn't help and it may well have been the straw the broke the camel's back, but it wouldn't have been a major issue had they not quadrupled their population within 50 years, had a more modern economy that allowed for wide-spread participation, had a less tribal society with a democratic government and weren't in the neighborhood of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

dlivingston 6y ago

As usual, the loudest voices are not the most rational. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, push for the solutions that you desire.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

I personally believe in manmade climate change but when I read about things like the "global warming pause" I get concerned.[1] About 5 years ago there was a lot of discussion about the "pause" in the warming trend between 1998 and 2012. Nature devoted an entire issue to it.[2] But then I start reading that the pause never happened.[3] And if you read the wikipedia page, it sounds like there is still a lot of controversy within the climate change community whether or not global warming actually paused. I'm not a climate scientist, so maybe I'm missing something (happy to be educated), but shouldn't we be able to tell pretty definitively whether or not the planet had been warming over that decade? Isn't there a standard way to measure global temperatures? It seems like it would be difficult to spot trends if how you're measuring it is changing over time. I read about how "if you interpolate arctic temperatures" or "account for ocean temperatures" the "pause" disappears. But how do we know the new analysis is right and the old one was wrong? What's if it's the opposite? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus [2]https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [3]https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-hiatus-pause-never-happened-studies-explain-climate-change-risbey-oreskes-mann https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-h...

clusterfish 6y ago
I would think us engineers would appreciate the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet. It's not just raw temperature readings from buoys. Incremental improvement of models and some debate to sort out the reasons for temporary inconsistencies is to be expected in science. None of this is really any excuse to be doubting climate change in general, or the severity thereof. All of that is just politics, not science. Scientists know that our models are just as likely to underestimate the effects of climate change as they are to overestimate them. It is only politically motivated opinionistas that focus exclusively on one of those possibilities.
- refurb 6y ago
  I had a career in science so I completely understand how models that predict the future are refined over time, that isn't concerning at all. Saying "we predict temperatures will rise between 0.5C and 2.0C this century" is just smart science. But my comment isn't around a future prediction, this is measuring the temperature right now. You mention "the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet", which I can understand is complex, but ignore "net energy absorption" for now, let's just focus on "what was the average temperature last year". Would I be correct saying we're still not sure how best to get that data?

sebmellen 6y ago

I can't emphasize France's success with nuclear power and the magic of thorium enough.