5 ms·

No, we definitely don't know that it's used as a tool for control. We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than t

by tonyhb 6y ago

No, we definitely don't know that it's used as a tool for control. We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before. We know this is not natural. We know that prior to the 70s the world was cooling. Reversing climate change is an aim to make society and the world better as a whole. Not for "control".

abstractbarista 6y ago
Temperatures rising and falling over hundreds and thousands of years is indeed natural. The system is in constant flux, with or without us. Our acceleration of this process by releasing vast quantities of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short period of time, however, is not. Limiting our interference in this natural process will necessitate vast methods and quantities of 'control'. Nevertheless, it should be done. And fortunately, this process will herald a new economic expansion providing jobs and creativity outlets for countless people worldwide.
linuxftw 6y ago
> We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before This is untrue.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Okay so you say "this is untrue". You might be right but why should I trust you? Why did you fail to produce evidence? Your comment is way too short to know for sure.
correct_horse 6y ago
Slight correction - temperatures are not higher than ever before. The eocene (60 million years ago) was 10-14 degrees hotter than now. That level of warming would be bad to say the least, but it has easily been this hot before. Also relevant, a few times in the Pleistocene, 20,000 years ago, temperatures peaked a couple degrees hotter than they are now.
- snickms 6y ago
  I believe the parent is talking about rate of change rather than absolute temperature. Discounting collisions with large meteors, the statement that the average temperature over time has never risen so fast is true.
  - correct_horse 6y ago
    Hm. I didn't consider that interpretation.
    - snickms 6y ago
      When someone talks about anything changing over a period of time, they are talking about slope. There really isn't another interpretation.
      - arilotter 6y ago
        The post in question writes "have risen higher", which to me reads as if it's saying that the temperature, as a result of rising, is now higher than ever before, not that the rate of change is higher. I would expect something along the lines of "have risen faster" if we were describing the slope of the graph of temperature over time.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I don’t think that is true. I read it as the maximum, not the slope. The confusion is from the use of higher instead of faster. Faster would be the rate of change while higher is absolute value. > We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before. This could be a year over year increase in maximum, with a very small slope too
    - tonyhb 6y ago
      Correct, horse (battery staple)! Sorry about that. This interpretation is what I intended - the rate of change has certainly increased like never before.
johnp314 6y ago
"...make society and the world better as a whole." How exactly do 'we' (whoever 'we' is) achieve this without control? The verb 'make' assumes control, one does not make anything without having control over the ingredients, and in this case the ingredients are us.
gwright 6y ago
> No, we definitely don't know that it's used as a tool for control. Irrespective of the nature of climate change, humans are humans and a crisis or enemy, if you will, will always be an opportunity for people to assert control. The difficult task is understanding when that control is a reasonable response to the crisis and when the crisis is an excuse to assert control. This is not an exclusive choice, both types of efforts can be going on simultaneously. We seem to have become numb to the large numbers that are now thrown around as part of defining public policy. When you start manipulating multiple trillions of dollars it is naive to think that isn't an opportunity for manipulation of all sorts.

by tonyhb 6y ago

abstractbarista 6y ago

Temperatures rising and falling over hundreds and thousands of years is indeed natural. The system is in constant flux, with or without us. Our acceleration of this process by releasing vast quantities of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short period of time, however, is not. Limiting our interference in this natural process will necessitate vast methods and quantities of 'control'. Nevertheless, it should be done. And fortunately, this process will herald a new economic expansion providing jobs and creativity outlets for countless people worldwide.

linuxftw 6y ago

> We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before This is untrue.

imtringued 6y ago
Okay so you say "this is untrue". You might be right but why should I trust you? Why did you fail to produce evidence? Your comment is way too short to know for sure.

correct_horse 6y ago

Slight correction - temperatures are not higher than ever before. The eocene (60 million years ago) was 10-14 degrees hotter than now. That level of warming would be bad to say the least, but it has easily been this hot before. Also relevant, a few times in the Pleistocene, 20,000 years ago, temperatures peaked a couple degrees hotter than they are now.

snickms 6y ago
I believe the parent is talking about rate of change rather than absolute temperature. Discounting collisions with large meteors, the statement that the average temperature over time has never risen so fast is true.
- correct_horse 6y ago
  Hm. I didn't consider that interpretation.
  - snickms 6y ago
    When someone talks about anything changing over a period of time, they are talking about slope. There really isn't another interpretation.
    - arilotter 6y ago
      The post in question writes "have risen higher", which to me reads as if it's saying that the temperature, as a result of rising, is now higher than ever before, not that the rate of change is higher. I would expect something along the lines of "have risen faster" if we were describing the slope of the graph of temperature over time.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I don’t think that is true. I read it as the maximum, not the slope. The confusion is from the use of higher instead of faster. Faster would be the rate of change while higher is absolute value. > We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before. This could be a year over year increase in maximum, with a very small slope too
  - tonyhb 6y ago
    Correct, horse (battery staple)! Sorry about that. This interpretation is what I intended - the rate of change has certainly increased like never before.

johnp314 6y ago

"...make society and the world better as a whole." How exactly do 'we' (whoever 'we' is) achieve this without control? The verb 'make' assumes control, one does not make anything without having control over the ingredients, and in this case the ingredients are us.

gwright 6y ago

> No, we definitely don't know that it's used as a tool for control. Irrespective of the nature of climate change, humans are humans and a crisis or enemy, if you will, will always be an opportunity for people to assert control. The difficult task is understanding when that control is a reasonable response to the crisis and when the crisis is an excuse to assert control. This is not an exclusive choice, both types of efforts can be going on simultaneously. We seem to have become numb to the large numbers that are now thrown around as part of defining public policy. When you start manipulating multiple trillions of dollars it is naive to think that isn't an opportunity for manipulation of all sorts.