4 ms·

I have a feeling that "contradict science on climate change" will only go one way. For example, economists agree that effects of climate change would be very sm

I have a feeling that "contradict science on climate change" will only go one way. For example, economists agree that effects of climate change would be very small (compared to the world's economy) or even positive. David Friedman even thinks that climate change might be a *net positive* for the economy [1][2]. Is Twitter going to ban ads that say climate change will be a catastrophe? [1] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/david_friedman_9.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/david_friedman_9.ht... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euL39f1kins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euL39f1kins

npunt 4y ago
Macroeconomics really strains the definition of 'science'. Few economists would place their field's predictive or descriptive power anywhere near that of chemistry, physics, biology, and all the other hard sciences that are part of climate science and the analysis of its effects. And I haven't yet seen people in the fact checking / 'allowable speech' sphere bring up most any social sciences as being settled or beyond reproach enough to take down content. Given that there are so many unknowns about the extent of the nth-order effects of climate change (e.g. ecosystem collapse), I find it laughable that economists have a macro model that has any level of certainty to it. They can't even get relatively static situations correct, let alone literally world-changing ones.
imtringued 4y ago
Considering humanity's desire for space exploration, not investing in climate change mitigations has negative effects on the economy outside earth. In fact, I would argue that the success of capitalism relies purely on its ability to force people to invent things that would appear pointless from a first glance. Yes, all those stupid startups that are failing are there to win the technological progress lottery. Meanwhile other economic models won't play the lottery which has a significant cost over the short term and be happy in some local minima.
gaganyaan 4y ago
Come on now, you're just being silly. "Yeah the ecosystem collapsed and everything's dying, but GDP is off the charts from all the cleanup work we're paying people to do!"
markdown 4y ago
> David Friedman even thinks that climate change might be a net positive for the economy Which economy? Certainly not the ones that are getting destroyed by "biggest ever recorded" tropical cyclones. Maybe he meant Sweden finally being able to grow and export bananas?
- yes_really 4y ago
  > Which economy? Certainly not the ones that are getting destroyed by "biggest ever recorded" tropical cyclones. The literature is mixed on whether climate change is really the cause on these recent natural disasters and, if it is, on how it impacts those disasters (e.g. reducing the frequency of the disasters, changing their location, etc). > Maybe he meant Sweden finally being able to grow and export bananas? Your example of Sweden is a rich country, but most of the increases in crop production would take place on developing countries - and that is a big deal for them.
  - olliej 4y ago
    Massive crop failures across poorer equatorial regions have become increasingly regular. Longer, harder, droughts, and then extreme water events that can’t retain much of the water causes other problems beyond just floods. Economists have historically proven to be extremely inaccurate at predicting long term patterns. They also have a strong bias in favour of business, so always find “supporting evidence” for almost any choice creating immediate gains for business. An easy measure is: has any major economic “study” ever supported raising taxes for businesses or the rich? Have they supported investing in employee welfare? Universal healthcare? Etc In countries that have done this, and thus actually measured the outcomes, they have found things have improved for the majority of people. In countries that have followed the “reduce taxes and services” to improve society we have for decades seen the exact opposite, and yet economists still claim that life will improve for people. Again, this is despite decades of direct contrary evidence. Economics is a fiction, the only actual supported piece of economic theory is supply vs demand. That’s it.
    - landemva 4y ago
yes_really 4y ago
For people that are lost on how climate change could be positive: it causes higher crop yields, and increases the temperature in cold regions (saving people from freezing to death and saving huge amounts of energy in heating). Economists have performed many analyses on these and the conclusions indicate the consequences of climate change are much more mild that what the media, NGOs and politicians propagate. It's revolting that institutions have kept this scientific analysis away from the general population and have been feeding us political hysteria instead. The fact that even educated, rational, successful engineers in Hacker News are not aware of these data is another argument for why Twitter shouldn't be censoring ads in this political way.
- imtringued 4y ago
  There are also economic models that predict a sustainability cliff within the next few decades and massive economic declines.
  - kbelder 4y ago
    The issue isn't settled yet? Huh.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  What about ecosystem collapse? What about the fact that there's a negative correlation between CO2 and nutrient density in crops? What about tipping point events like reversing of Atlantic current, massive tundra methane releases, ocean acidification.
  - rendall 4y ago
    When you read the articles and papers, did they answer your questions?

npunt 4y ago

Macroeconomics really strains the definition of 'science'. Few economists would place their field's predictive or descriptive power anywhere near that of chemistry, physics, biology, and all the other hard sciences that are part of climate science and the analysis of its effects. And I haven't yet seen people in the fact checking / 'allowable speech' sphere bring up most any social sciences as being settled or beyond reproach enough to take down content. Given that there are so many unknowns about the extent of the nth-order effects of climate change (e.g. ecosystem collapse), I find it laughable that economists have a macro model that has any level of certainty to it. They can't even get relatively static situations correct, let alone literally world-changing ones.

imtringued 4y ago

Considering humanity's desire for space exploration, not investing in climate change mitigations has negative effects on the economy outside earth. In fact, I would argue that the success of capitalism relies purely on its ability to force people to invent things that would appear pointless from a first glance. Yes, all those stupid startups that are failing are there to win the technological progress lottery. Meanwhile other economic models won't play the lottery which has a significant cost over the short term and be happy in some local minima.

gaganyaan 4y ago

Come on now, you're just being silly. "Yeah the ecosystem collapsed and everything's dying, but GDP is off the charts from all the cleanup work we're paying people to do!"

markdown 4y ago

> David Friedman even thinks that climate change might be a net positive for the economy Which economy? Certainly not the ones that are getting destroyed by "biggest ever recorded" tropical cyclones. Maybe he meant Sweden finally being able to grow and export bananas?

yes_really 4y ago
> Which economy? Certainly not the ones that are getting destroyed by "biggest ever recorded" tropical cyclones. The literature is mixed on whether climate change is really the cause on these recent natural disasters and, if it is, on how it impacts those disasters (e.g. reducing the frequency of the disasters, changing their location, etc). > Maybe he meant Sweden finally being able to grow and export bananas? Your example of Sweden is a rich country, but most of the increases in crop production would take place on developing countries - and that is a big deal for them.
- olliej 4y ago
  Massive crop failures across poorer equatorial regions have become increasingly regular. Longer, harder, droughts, and then extreme water events that can’t retain much of the water causes other problems beyond just floods. Economists have historically proven to be extremely inaccurate at predicting long term patterns. They also have a strong bias in favour of business, so always find “supporting evidence” for almost any choice creating immediate gains for business. An easy measure is: has any major economic “study” ever supported raising taxes for businesses or the rich? Have they supported investing in employee welfare? Universal healthcare? Etc In countries that have done this, and thus actually measured the outcomes, they have found things have improved for the majority of people. In countries that have followed the “reduce taxes and services” to improve society we have for decades seen the exact opposite, and yet economists still claim that life will improve for people. Again, this is despite decades of direct contrary evidence. Economics is a fiction, the only actual supported piece of economic theory is supply vs demand. That’s it.
  - landemva 4y ago

yes_really 4y ago

For people that are lost on how climate change could be positive: it causes higher crop yields, and increases the temperature in cold regions (saving people from freezing to death and saving huge amounts of energy in heating). Economists have performed many analyses on these and the conclusions indicate the consequences of climate change are much more mild that what the media, NGOs and politicians propagate. It's revolting that institutions have kept this scientific analysis away from the general population and have been feeding us political hysteria instead. The fact that even educated, rational, successful engineers in Hacker News are not aware of these data is another argument for why Twitter shouldn't be censoring ads in this political way.

imtringued 4y ago
There are also economic models that predict a sustainability cliff within the next few decades and massive economic declines.
- kbelder 4y ago
  The issue isn't settled yet? Huh.
diordiderot 4y ago
What about ecosystem collapse? What about the fact that there's a negative correlation between CO2 and nutrient density in crops? What about tipping point events like reversing of Atlantic current, massive tundra methane releases, ocean acidification.
- rendall 4y ago
  When you read the articles and papers, did they answer your questions?