5 ms·

This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo and do nothing until we have certainty. In practice, we've already begu

This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo and do nothing until we have certainty. In practice, we've already begun an experiment in mass-scale terraforming of our environment by emitting vast amounts of CO2. Since we don't know exactly what this will do, but every indication is that the outcome will be catastrophic, we should be working as hard as possible to halt our emissions now. Once we've done that, we can wait for certainty.

standardUser 6y ago
"This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo..." And that is generally trotted out as an argument that we should ignore the facts. If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue, we should be striving to change that bias, not surrender to it. Otherwise we veer towards dogmatic interpretations that inevitably become false or contradictory, which I would argue is ultimately a larger deterrent to swaying hearts and minds.
- dlp211 6y ago
  > If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understanding of an issue can not be realized until the issue is fully actualized. In other words, if we wait for the global atmospheric temp to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius to ensure our accuracy, it is far too late to do anything about it. Uncertainty exists, yes, but that uncertainty is mostly in timescales and consequences of environmental outcomes, not the environmental outcomes themselves.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    I'm reacting to a certain perspective that seems to be dominant when it comes to climate change discourse, wherein its common to take the most severe/pessimistic interpretation of the science and then categorize any less severe interpretations as insufficient. I think that's a poor approach and only serves to alienate people who may be looking for something a little more even-handed or closely aligned with the trends in the science (as opposed to clinging to the extremes). Having said that, I think that even the most optimistic interpretations of climate change are compelling enough to warrant immediate and dramatic action. But we should all strive for the most accurate interpretations of the science, which means being flexible and not dogmatic.
    - dlp211 6y ago
      I don't know anything about biological factors of iq, but I'll take that kind of denialism, ie: all people are capable irrespective of their skin color, gender, other biological traits, over the former which will do lasting harm to persons all over the world and destroy massive amounts of wealth and productivity.
manfredo 6y ago
Most science predicts warming of ~2* Celsius. That will definitely be disruptive, but it's not catastrophic. Remember this change is amortized over much of the century. We should definitely be arriving towards decarbonization, but the reality is that there are other priorities. Climate change is a problem the world is facing, along with malaria, poverty, conflict and more. We absolutely should not prioritize getting to zero emissions above all else. Bombing coal plants in other countries would make great strides towards getting to zero emissions, but surely you agree that such efforts go too far.
- jfim 6y ago
  Keep in mind that that increase is a global average. Land tends to have larger increases in temperature than the average, while oceans and water surfaces have a smaller increase in temperature[0]. What may be an average of two degrees Celsius might be four or five on land and one and a half on water. [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up...
- sergeykish 6y ago
  Science predicts 2°C if world acted at least ten years ago. > Current climate policies: projected warming of 2.8 to 3.2°C by 2100 based on current implemented climate policies; > No climate policies: projected future emissions if no climate policies were implemented; this would result in an estimated 4.1 to 4.8°C warming by 2100 https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions
  - adrianN 6y ago
    And climate models generally don't yet take into account tipping points, so they are most likely conservative in their estimates.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Right, and ~3 degrees of warming if we continue with current energy policies for the next 80 years is much more benign than what many are claiming. It's not uncommon for people to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero in the next twelve years or the earth will become uninhabitable. If that were true then yes, we should start bombing fossil fuel plants. But in reality the damage causes by such action would be far more damaging than climate change.

standardUser 6y ago

"This is generally trotted out as an argument that we should continue with the status quo..." And that is generally trotted out as an argument that we should ignore the facts. If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue, we should be striving to change that bias, not surrender to it. Otherwise we veer towards dogmatic interpretations that inevitably become false or contradictory, which I would argue is ultimately a larger deterrent to swaying hearts and minds.

dlp211 6y ago
> If it "sounds" bad to work towards the most accurate understanding of an issue Nobody is making that argument. The issue is that the most accurate understanding of an issue can not be realized until the issue is fully actualized. In other words, if we wait for the global atmospheric temp to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius to ensure our accuracy, it is far too late to do anything about it. Uncertainty exists, yes, but that uncertainty is mostly in timescales and consequences of environmental outcomes, not the environmental outcomes themselves.
- standardUser 6y ago
  I'm reacting to a certain perspective that seems to be dominant when it comes to climate change discourse, wherein its common to take the most severe/pessimistic interpretation of the science and then categorize any less severe interpretations as insufficient. I think that's a poor approach and only serves to alienate people who may be looking for something a little more even-handed or closely aligned with the trends in the science (as opposed to clinging to the extremes). Having said that, I think that even the most optimistic interpretations of climate change are compelling enough to warrant immediate and dramatic action. But we should all strive for the most accurate interpretations of the science, which means being flexible and not dogmatic.
  - dlp211 6y ago
    I don't know anything about biological factors of iq, but I'll take that kind of denialism, ie: all people are capable irrespective of their skin color, gender, other biological traits, over the former which will do lasting harm to persons all over the world and destroy massive amounts of wealth and productivity.

manfredo 6y ago

Most science predicts warming of ~2* Celsius. That will definitely be disruptive, but it's not catastrophic. Remember this change is amortized over much of the century. We should definitely be arriving towards decarbonization, but the reality is that there are other priorities. Climate change is a problem the world is facing, along with malaria, poverty, conflict and more. We absolutely should not prioritize getting to zero emissions above all else. Bombing coal plants in other countries would make great strides towards getting to zero emissions, but surely you agree that such efforts go too far.

jfim 6y ago
Keep in mind that that increase is a global average. Land tends to have larger increases in temperature than the average, while oceans and water surfaces have a smaller increase in temperature[0]. What may be an average of two degrees Celsius might be four or five on land and one and a half on water. [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up...
sergeykish 6y ago
Science predicts 2°C if world acted at least ten years ago. > Current climate policies: projected warming of 2.8 to 3.2°C by 2100 based on current implemented climate policies; > No climate policies: projected future emissions if no climate policies were implemented; this would result in an estimated 4.1 to 4.8°C warming by 2100 https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/future-emissions
- adrianN 6y ago
  And climate models generally don't yet take into account tipping points, so they are most likely conservative in their estimates.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Right, and ~3 degrees of warming if we continue with current energy policies for the next 80 years is much more benign than what many are claiming. It's not uncommon for people to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero in the next twelve years or the earth will become uninhabitable. If that were true then yes, we should start bombing fossil fuel plants. But in reality the damage causes by such action would be far more damaging than climate change.