5 ms·

Not the OP, but I think the point is valid. I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or jus

Not the OP, but I think the point is valid. I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or just around the corner). No, really, this time it's for real! Donate here to stop it. Most of the "solutions" I've seen are worse than the problem. Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Carbon offset credits? Really? With the amount of alarmism and blatant opportunism in the space, it's pretty hard to sift through and focus on real, meaningful change. Like not wasting precious aquifer water on lawns. Simple stuff that would have real impact. Taxing the hell out of single use plastic water bottles. We've done it before. The anti CFC thing was a huge success. Seems like that should be a model to follow. Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one.

CalRobert 4y ago
CFC's had a more or less drop-in replacement. Sadly we lack this for fossil fuels. And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  According to what measures? Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency. Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago. Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased. Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be. I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
  - russelg 4y ago
    In Australia, we've experienced all of the above within the last couple years. Worst droughts in 20+ years, biggest bushfire season ever, and now record breaking flooding.
    - newrotik 4y ago
      This is not correct and proves the point made in the parent's comment. Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0]. Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Your assertions are trivially disproven - or put into their proper context - here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? When you expand the window, the picture changes. Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
      - xpe 4y ago
        >> https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators > It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.
        claytongulick 4y ago
        A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... For the heat wave chart, the stated reason for this is that it's the date where most urban areas started keeping careful records. They also, as a footnote[1] include an image going back much farther [2] which completely changes the picture and analysis. However the text description is all about the increase since 1960, only barely mentioning that it was much worse in the 1930s. How is it possible to look at this and not question it? Making false statements? Slowing down and reminding myself? I've spent countless hours looking at original noaa data related to climate change. I've seen a very clear distortion of data in reporting. > Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe. That's great advice, maybe we should both take it? [3] [4] I don't need to go through every single measure here, it's pretty easy to discover for yourself if you take a real look at the data. The severity and frequency of things like droughts, severe weather, heat waves are flat, if not in decline when you look across a broader window. Sea level rise is pretty linear for as long as it's been measured [5] NOAA data is pretty clear on this. Arctic sea ice? It has a well known oscillation that generally runs close to 180 degrees out of phase with antarctic sea ice. Again, super easy to learn about if you dig in. Did you know that Arctic sea ice actually increased from 1979 to 2015? [6] Also, measuring sea ice is notoriously difficult and error prone, and satellite data doesn't do a very good job of it. Also easy to learn about. My overall point, which for some strange reason gathers a ton of open hostility, is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...). It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice! [1] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves#%20 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [2] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images/2022-07/heat-waves_thumb3_2022.png?itok=Dcf-VBqX https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images... [3] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [4] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [5] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927321005090 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S20959...
  - xpe 4y ago
    I'll hear you out, if you cite your sources... > I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models ... Which climate models are pessimistic in your view? Which models are alarmist? Please define alarmist as you are using it. What exactly are you measuring when you say "alarmist"? Is there a threshold? Let's get some common footing. Here's a thought experiment and question: Let's say Organization X finds in 90% of model runs, the global climate is disrupted to the point that the USA will face between $400B and $800B of additional costs starting in 2040 and increasing somewhere around 1% to 3% per year. * Is summarizing this finding alarmist? Of course not -- it is only describing a model's prediction. * Is the model alarmist? What would make it alarmist? If the assumptions are unrealistic? But all models are imperfect. So how unrealistic must they be? On the flip side, What models do you recommend? Please share how your favorite models are funded. > ... and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems. According to your definitions of "real", "concrete", and "addressable". Do you think NASA's writing on climate change does not reflect reality? That is is not concrete? That the problems are not addressable? So is NASA alarmist w.r.t. climate change? What about the reinsurance industry? Let's take Swiss Re. Are they alarmist? Please point us to some solid writing (such as a credible report) that summarizes your views. Two final questions: have you studied economics? built predictive models? I'd like to get a sense of good ways to have this discussion. Perhaps we can cut through a bunch of preliminaries and cut to the chase. Do you agree that the following framing is a useful way to think about our response to climate change? Technological constraints define what levers can be pulled and at what cost, in the short-run at least. Political decisions drive how governments spend money. Economic factors constrain financial and monetary options. Over the medium-term, investments in science and technology tend to increase expand the option space.
xpe 4y ago
We can't talk about a point being valid or otherwise if it is not clear. Saying vague statements such as 'but they predicted X and it didn't happen ...' is nearly useless when it comes to understanding and predicting X.
xpe 4y ago
> Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one. Many neoclassical economists would argue against this approach. Fix the incentives, they would say, and things will work out.
xpe 4y ago
> Carbon offset credits? Really? Your argument is incredulity? Give your reasons. I don't want a vapid rant.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Except for all the people who take climate change seriously, like the EU and China: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-incineration-new-plastic-pollution-push-2021-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-...
xpe 4y ago
Trying to individually address negative effects of climate change individually would be ... (1) expensive (2) difficult to manage administratively (3) imbalanced across programs (4) unresponsive as conditions or impacts change (5) corruptible, since special interests could focus their efforts to carve out irrational and unfair exceptions for themselves (6) overly politicized during budgetary decisions ... compared to addressing common causes more broadly.

CalRobert 4y ago

CFC's had a more or less drop-in replacement. Sadly we lack this for fossil fuels. And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.

claytongulick 4y ago
According to what measures? Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency. Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago. Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased. Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be. I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
- russelg 4y ago
  In Australia, we've experienced all of the above within the last couple years. Worst droughts in 20+ years, biggest bushfire season ever, and now record breaking flooding.
  - newrotik 4y ago
    This is not correct and proves the point made in the parent's comment. Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0]. Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Your assertions are trivially disproven - or put into their proper context - here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? When you expand the window, the picture changes. Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
    - xpe 4y ago
      >> https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators > It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... For the heat wave chart, the stated reason for this is that it's the date where most urban areas started keeping careful records. They also, as a footnote[1] include an image going back much farther [2] which completely changes the picture and analysis. However the text description is all about the increase since 1960, only barely mentioning that it was much worse in the 1930s. How is it possible to look at this and not question it? Making false statements? Slowing down and reminding myself? I've spent countless hours looking at original noaa data related to climate change. I've seen a very clear distortion of data in reporting. > Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe. That's great advice, maybe we should both take it? [3] [4] I don't need to go through every single measure here, it's pretty easy to discover for yourself if you take a real look at the data. The severity and frequency of things like droughts, severe weather, heat waves are flat, if not in decline when you look across a broader window. Sea level rise is pretty linear for as long as it's been measured [5] NOAA data is pretty clear on this. Arctic sea ice? It has a well known oscillation that generally runs close to 180 degrees out of phase with antarctic sea ice. Again, super easy to learn about if you dig in. Did you know that Arctic sea ice actually increased from 1979 to 2015? [6] Also, measuring sea ice is notoriously difficult and error prone, and satellite data doesn't do a very good job of it. Also easy to learn about. My overall point, which for some strange reason gathers a ton of open hostility, is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...). It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice! [1] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves#%20 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [2] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images/2022-07/heat-waves_thumb3_2022.png?itok=Dcf-VBqX https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images... [3] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [4] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [5] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927321005090 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S20959...
- xpe 4y ago
  I'll hear you out, if you cite your sources... > I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models ... Which climate models are pessimistic in your view? Which models are alarmist? Please define alarmist as you are using it. What exactly are you measuring when you say "alarmist"? Is there a threshold? Let's get some common footing. Here's a thought experiment and question: Let's say Organization X finds in 90% of model runs, the global climate is disrupted to the point that the USA will face between $400B and $800B of additional costs starting in 2040 and increasing somewhere around 1% to 3% per year. * Is summarizing this finding alarmist? Of course not -- it is only describing a model's prediction. * Is the model alarmist? What would make it alarmist? If the assumptions are unrealistic? But all models are imperfect. So how unrealistic must they be? On the flip side, What models do you recommend? Please share how your favorite models are funded. > ... and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems. According to your definitions of "real", "concrete", and "addressable". Do you think NASA's writing on climate change does not reflect reality? That is is not concrete? That the problems are not addressable? So is NASA alarmist w.r.t. climate change? What about the reinsurance industry? Let's take Swiss Re. Are they alarmist? Please point us to some solid writing (such as a credible report) that summarizes your views. Two final questions: have you studied economics? built predictive models? I'd like to get a sense of good ways to have this discussion. Perhaps we can cut through a bunch of preliminaries and cut to the chase. Do you agree that the following framing is a useful way to think about our response to climate change? Technological constraints define what levers can be pulled and at what cost, in the short-run at least. Political decisions drive how governments spend money. Economic factors constrain financial and monetary options. Over the medium-term, investments in science and technology tend to increase expand the option space.

xpe 4y ago

We can't talk about a point being valid or otherwise if it is not clear. Saying vague statements such as 'but they predicted X and it didn't happen ...' is nearly useless when it comes to understanding and predicting X.

xpe 4y ago

> Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one. Many neoclassical economists would argue against this approach. Fix the incentives, they would say, and things will work out.

xpe 4y ago

> Carbon offset credits? Really? Your argument is incredulity? Give your reasons. I don't want a vapid rant.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Except for all the people who take climate change seriously, like the EU and China: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-incineration-new-plastic-pollution-push-2021-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-...

xpe 4y ago

Trying to individually address negative effects of climate change individually would be ... (1) expensive (2) difficult to manage administratively (3) imbalanced across programs (4) unresponsive as conditions or impacts change (5) corruptible, since special interests could focus their efforts to carve out irrational and unfair exceptions for themselves (6) overly politicized during budgetary decisions ... compared to addressing common causes more broadly.