7 ms·

The "it's not man made" and "just a natural cycle" is easily disproven by showing historical temperatures change where it does, by pure accident, a hockey stick

The "it's not man made" and "just a natural cycle" is easily disproven by showing historical temperatures change where it does, by pure accident, a hockey stick trick just last century. Or it would if the audience wasn't resistant to proofs altogether...

SigmundA 5y ago
Arguing with proofs just ends up leading to Brandolini's law [1]. You can make the most researched argument against any ridiculous point and you just get back a shoot from the hip rebuttal that needs further research that ends need a lengthly explanation why it's also wrong and it just keeps going. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
edgyquant 5y ago
To play devils advocate, they could say that they would need to zoom out to a couple thousands years to be sure or (I’ve actually heard this one) that it is a coincidence that temperatures picked up after the industrial revolution since the little ice age ended around the same time.
- eloff 5y ago
  We've done that though. The climate stayed in a narrow 1 degree Celsius range since the end of the last ice age. It's likely that very stability that allowed agriculture and civilization to flourish. That epoch is called the Holocene. We've left that now and entered a new era. The Anthropocine, where the major driver in the climate is now us.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    Sure I was merely suggesting a rebuttal that would be pretty common.
  - noobly 5y ago
    From what I understand, the sun has also been getting hotter, hasn't it? I agree that man contributes to climate change, but quantifying this is where I think the conversation gets interesting. I haven't really gone very far down this hole though as it seems too muddled. And then if you do conclude man is primarily at fault, what do you do? The US is only responsible for so much output, for example, and sources like nuclear aren't viewed positively.
    - ManuelKiessling 5y ago
      The US is only responsible for for so much of worldwide murders. Why trying to limit the number of murders in the US, then? It won’t change the total number of murders on the planet in a significant way.
      - noobly 5y ago
        That analogy doesn't really apply imo.. Global murder totals don't impact me like murders in America do. Similarly, climate change effects all parties, no matter their contribution. A better analogy, imo, would be something like a leaking ship, where the portion we're responsible for has a pinhole that we're debating on if/how to patch up, while other parties have gaping holes gushing in water constantly with no clear intent to fix the hole, as we all begin our descent. And in this case, I don't think buying a Tesla or some vegan burgers is going to make a substantial difference. As long as there's economic incentive to negatively contribute climate change, it will happen.
        eloff 5y ago
        I object to the use of the term pinhole. Per capita the United States is one of the worst offenders. It's also up there in absolute numbers too.
        noobly 5y ago
        The point of the analogy was to represent that our actions may be essentially inconsequential if all holes are not sealed, and that larger holes or offenders should take priority. The hole size wasn't really all that important, but yes, a more accurate description would've involved a larger hole, probably. How do we even get emission data anyway? Especially for other countries like China. For example this source is telling me our per capita emissions are higher than China, which I very much doubt: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
mfer 5y ago
A long time ago I leaned that no one wins an argument. When it comes to choosing a side in an argument, people end up defending their side to the end. I think it can get worse when the other side is unfriendly. This is what we have today when it comes to climate stuff. It's not a conversation. It's often not polite. This has the sad effect of pushing many people we disagree with further into their position. Which is exactly what we don't want.
- buran77 5y ago
  One option is not to contradict but lean into the argument the other is making and let them judge if even the premise that they're positioning themselves opposed to your "wrong" argument puts them in a good position. Let's accept "it's not man made" and "it' s a natural cycle and here we are still". The Black Plague was natural and surely we wouldn't want it today. We routinely take precautions against so many natural things so why not this?
- noobly 5y ago
  I think hostage negotiators have a lot to teach here.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Recalling La Rochefoucauld, "The only orator who never fails to persuade is emotion". I appreciate the distinction between an argument and a conversation. In a conversation, one is hopefully just as open to being persuaded as one is to persuading. If, by arguing, we engender negative emotions in our interlocutor, we will have employed the most potent orator against ourselves.
tetha 5y ago
The relevant xkcd[1] beautifully rubs that in. 1: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
pweezy 5y ago
XKCD's "Earth Temperature Timeline" is an excellent visualization of this: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- rightbyte 5y ago
  It has a lowpass filter until modern times. It doesn't say much. How would the peak 5000BC look with high resolution?
  - ajross 5y ago
    It's not. Ice core isotope evidence gives you resolution all the way down to a year or two. We're seeing a first derivative of temperature that is simply unattested in any of that data. Or any other data source, honestly. It's true that over thousand year timescales the earth has seen excursions larger than this. We have no evidence anywhere for anything happening this fast in the climate other than large impact events.
kart23 5y ago
50 million years ago, there were forests in the arctic and the earth was much hotter than it is right now. Climate change comes in both man-made and natural varieties, and it's important to acknowledge the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
- lmilcin 5y ago
  And 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was a ball of lava. I guess we can only acknowledge the problem after it gets hotter than at some arbitrary point in the past.
  - kart23 5y ago
    it's absolutely a problem for us. But saying climate change is a natural cycle isn't wrong. We have sped up the process of climate change, so much that it is a problem for us. Aging is a natural process. Now imagine there was a virus that would make everyone age 100 times as fast. It would then be a huge problem for humanity. That's the best way I have of describing climate change.
- suby 5y ago
  The rate of change matters, it's a crucial factor. Typically when the climate changes it's over the course of thousands of years. This in contrast is a rapid change. I'm also not sure what your point even is. "Climate change comes in both man-made and natural varieties?" Ok, and this time happens to be manmade, so maybe we should do something about it.
  - kart23 5y ago
    You're absolutely right. Our current climate change is mandmade, and we need to do something about it. But saying climate change in general is only manmade is wrong, which is what I thought the commenter was saying.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  Also we have built a very large amount of infrastructure that assumes the climate is the way it is now. You think it's expensive and annoying to have software dependencies pushed to you when you aren't ready, try being forced to take SeaLevel 2.0 and HurricaneFrequency 10 before you are ready.
tzs 5y ago
Or look at the isotope mix of the C in the CO₂ in the atmosphere. CO₂ from burning fossil fuels does not contain ¹⁴C. CO₂ from volcanoes also does not contain ¹⁴C. CO₂ from other sources does contain ¹⁴C. Subtract out all the CO₂ from volcanoes and whatever you have left that does not contain ¹⁴C came from burning fossil fuels.

SigmundA 5y ago

Arguing with proofs just ends up leading to Brandolini's law [1]. You can make the most researched argument against any ridiculous point and you just get back a shoot from the hip rebuttal that needs further research that ends need a lengthly explanation why it's also wrong and it just keeps going. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

edgyquant 5y ago

To play devils advocate, they could say that they would need to zoom out to a couple thousands years to be sure or (I’ve actually heard this one) that it is a coincidence that temperatures picked up after the industrial revolution since the little ice age ended around the same time.

eloff 5y ago
We've done that though. The climate stayed in a narrow 1 degree Celsius range since the end of the last ice age. It's likely that very stability that allowed agriculture and civilization to flourish. That epoch is called the Holocene. We've left that now and entered a new era. The Anthropocine, where the major driver in the climate is now us.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Sure I was merely suggesting a rebuttal that would be pretty common.
- noobly 5y ago
  From what I understand, the sun has also been getting hotter, hasn't it? I agree that man contributes to climate change, but quantifying this is where I think the conversation gets interesting. I haven't really gone very far down this hole though as it seems too muddled. And then if you do conclude man is primarily at fault, what do you do? The US is only responsible for so much output, for example, and sources like nuclear aren't viewed positively.
  - ManuelKiessling 5y ago
    The US is only responsible for for so much of worldwide murders. Why trying to limit the number of murders in the US, then? It won’t change the total number of murders on the planet in a significant way.
    - noobly 5y ago
      That analogy doesn't really apply imo.. Global murder totals don't impact me like murders in America do. Similarly, climate change effects all parties, no matter their contribution. A better analogy, imo, would be something like a leaking ship, where the portion we're responsible for has a pinhole that we're debating on if/how to patch up, while other parties have gaping holes gushing in water constantly with no clear intent to fix the hole, as we all begin our descent. And in this case, I don't think buying a Tesla or some vegan burgers is going to make a substantial difference. As long as there's economic incentive to negatively contribute climate change, it will happen.
      - eloff 5y ago
        I object to the use of the term pinhole. Per capita the United States is one of the worst offenders. It's also up there in absolute numbers too.
        noobly 5y ago
        The point of the analogy was to represent that our actions may be essentially inconsequential if all holes are not sealed, and that larger holes or offenders should take priority. The hole size wasn't really all that important, but yes, a more accurate description would've involved a larger hole, probably. How do we even get emission data anyway? Especially for other countries like China. For example this source is telling me our per capita emissions are higher than China, which I very much doubt: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

mfer 5y ago

A long time ago I leaned that no one wins an argument. When it comes to choosing a side in an argument, people end up defending their side to the end. I think it can get worse when the other side is unfriendly. This is what we have today when it comes to climate stuff. It's not a conversation. It's often not polite. This has the sad effect of pushing many people we disagree with further into their position. Which is exactly what we don't want.

buran77 5y ago
One option is not to contradict but lean into the argument the other is making and let them judge if even the premise that they're positioning themselves opposed to your "wrong" argument puts them in a good position. Let's accept "it's not man made" and "it' s a natural cycle and here we are still". The Black Plague was natural and surely we wouldn't want it today. We routinely take precautions against so many natural things so why not this?
noobly 5y ago
I think hostage negotiators have a lot to teach here.
nescioquid 5y ago
Recalling La Rochefoucauld, "The only orator who never fails to persuade is emotion". I appreciate the distinction between an argument and a conversation. In a conversation, one is hopefully just as open to being persuaded as one is to persuading. If, by arguing, we engender negative emotions in our interlocutor, we will have employed the most potent orator against ourselves.

tetha 5y ago

The relevant xkcd[1] beautifully rubs that in. 1: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

pweezy 5y ago

XKCD's "Earth Temperature Timeline" is an excellent visualization of this: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

rightbyte 5y ago
It has a lowpass filter until modern times. It doesn't say much. How would the peak 5000BC look with high resolution?
- ajross 5y ago
  It's not. Ice core isotope evidence gives you resolution all the way down to a year or two. We're seeing a first derivative of temperature that is simply unattested in any of that data. Or any other data source, honestly. It's true that over thousand year timescales the earth has seen excursions larger than this. We have no evidence anywhere for anything happening this fast in the climate other than large impact events.

kart23 5y ago

50 million years ago, there were forests in the arctic and the earth was much hotter than it is right now. Climate change comes in both man-made and natural varieties, and it's important to acknowledge the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

lmilcin 5y ago
And 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was a ball of lava. I guess we can only acknowledge the problem after it gets hotter than at some arbitrary point in the past.
- kart23 5y ago
  it's absolutely a problem for us. But saying climate change is a natural cycle isn't wrong. We have sped up the process of climate change, so much that it is a problem for us. Aging is a natural process. Now imagine there was a virus that would make everyone age 100 times as fast. It would then be a huge problem for humanity. That's the best way I have of describing climate change.
suby 5y ago
The rate of change matters, it's a crucial factor. Typically when the climate changes it's over the course of thousands of years. This in contrast is a rapid change. I'm also not sure what your point even is. "Climate change comes in both man-made and natural varieties?" Ok, and this time happens to be manmade, so maybe we should do something about it.
- kart23 5y ago
  You're absolutely right. Our current climate change is mandmade, and we need to do something about it. But saying climate change in general is only manmade is wrong, which is what I thought the commenter was saying.
cecilpl2 5y ago
Also we have built a very large amount of infrastructure that assumes the climate is the way it is now. You think it's expensive and annoying to have software dependencies pushed to you when you aren't ready, try being forced to take SeaLevel 2.0 and HurricaneFrequency 10 before you are ready.

tzs 5y ago

Or look at the isotope mix of the C in the CO₂ in the atmosphere. CO₂ from burning fossil fuels does not contain ¹⁴C. CO₂ from volcanoes also does not contain ¹⁴C. CO₂ from other sources does contain ¹⁴C. Subtract out all the CO₂ from volcanoes and whatever you have left that does not contain ¹⁴C came from burning fossil fuels.