5 ms·

I agree with Lombory's philosophy of pragmatism over ideology but I think his excessive focus on things heat deaths and polar bears in this talk amounts to a st

by glymor 18y ago

I agree with Lombory's philosophy of pragmatism over ideology but I think his excessive focus on things heat deaths and polar bears in this talk amounts to a straw-man argument. The big danger of Global warming is that it shifts liveable areas in three ways. water shortages eg China, India anywhere draining from the Himalayas; more slowly general temperature increases moving productive zones outwards, eg desertification in North Africa and the possibility of Greenland's ice-sheet joining the ocean and raising sea levels. Water shortages could be solved by desalination and water conservation thankfully California will probably pay for the development; general migration will require the generally richer countries in the north to take more people (or those people will come all at once) and rising water levels: lots of dykes? (this is actually one of the few costs of Global Warming that wouldn't be recuperable and could be v. expensive). By picking small things that were never really advanced as the big dangers of Global Warming he seems more deceptive than the environmentalists he's attempting to criticise.

Tichy 18y ago
Definitely straw-man, this is the first time I have heard about "heat deaths" as a reason to care about global warming. Personally I am more worried about people losing their place to live, and ensuing conflicts over territory. I also doubt that using food as fuel for cars happens only as an anti-global-warming measure. I suspect since oil is expensive, people are looking for alternatives. Although there might be subsidies and carbon taxes messing with the price. Hm, now I am at 10 minutes and he is still talking about heat deaths. Not interesting (<hits stop button>).
netcan 18y ago
I agree that these are straw man arguments. I also reacted to them at first. But then he doesn't seem to rely on them too much. He admits that they are a metaphor. To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this) & the likely major regional problems caused by mass migrations and/or wars over resources. However, his general argument is that a lot of money is being spent stupidly, very stupidly. I think that he is correct & that he makes that point. I am still hesitant to take his side on this. I have some major problems with this approach: (1) World Government - At the best of times governments are inefficient. For normal maintenance issues like how to run infrastructure, hospital systems, school systems & such they make mistakes, but they get by. Once issues become election winning issues, the debate gets really dumb. this is not only a central focus issue, it is a very technical issue. As he suggests, this is complicated & technical & every action needs to be weighed up. It's inefficient to simply take an ideological stance (renewable energy, energy efficiency, hybrid cars, etc) & get behind anything that promotes it. It is exponentially more rational to make this decision like an accountant creating a cash flow strategy. Unfortunately, it is impossible for a political process such as this to take on an accountant like decision making process. Political debates need to be much more dumbed down to be possible. In this case, this process can be seen as being conducted by the 'Government of the World,' a body very weak in the existence department, never mind the efficiency department. So in a real sense, if a policy can't be chanted by a mob, it cannot be pursued. Certainly not over the 50+ year period necessary. I just don't think that his 'plan' is a possibility. The political structure & decision making process here is our tool. We have a wood. He is proposing building a house from bricks. (2) Maybe panic is Necessary - Many predict that there is indeed a need for panic. That is possibly because of point of no return due to feedback. There are two kinds of feedback: the physical kind such as methane releases from melting permafrost, the political kind due to climate related political consequences such as a Chinese famine or a Pakistan/India war related to river flows. (3) Economic models break down at these sorts of concepts. Comparing economic outputs between two scenarios where one of them includes mass starvation is apples to oranges.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this) This will most likely be solved by growing food in Canada and Siberia.
  - netcan 18y ago
    The idea that new land will become available at a perfect replacement rate is a little bit up in the air. Anyway, even if this does happen, the adjustment period could starve 2 billion people over several decades or more. Large scale grain production is pretty optimised. That means it's very sensitive to any changes in the environment. Even if melted Siberian permafrost did provide a wheat growing hectare for every hectare lost down hear in Australia, it could take decades to shift production, optimise methods, industries & crop varieties. BTW, this may be another downside of GM. A kind of 'more of the same' to monocropping.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- viggity 18y ago
  "I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this)" We grow so much food it is absurd. In the 1940's the average yield for corn was 40-50 bushels/acre. Today it is 180, almost all of that increase is simply from better statistics used in breeding practices, an Ag companies have barely scratched the surface when it comes to using genetics to improve yields. If there is a food crisis, it won't be the lack of food that is the problem, it will be politicians and despots at the root of the problem.
gibsonf1 18y ago
What I wonder about is why nobody seems to be talking about the lack of correlation between global temperature and global warming theories. My understanding is that there has been increasing cooling in the last decade, with the coolest year this past year. Where exactly is the warming? (This is not to question the warming that occurred up to 1998)
- axod 18y ago
  "The emperors new clothes" Don't mention the truth! Just smile, wave and say the clothes look lovely.
  - netcan 18y ago
    So are you suggesting that trends mean global temperatures should be obvious to any casual observer or that the technicalities of policy decisions should be?
- Devilboy 18y ago
  Warming / cooling pattern for the last decade or so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming...
  - axod 18y ago
    You can't conclude anything from such a small period taken in isolation.
  - viggity 18y ago
    I'm sorry, but unless they had the same equipment in the same places in the 1940s as they do today, these numbers are probably bullshit.
- Tichy 18y ago
  I think the climatologists are capable of including natural cycles into their calculations. Global warming is not about absolute warming every year, it is about deviations from the expected temperatures. Since it is only a couple of degrees, it is unlikely that an individual would even notice it. Would you notice if one year is on average one degree warmer than the previous one? There have always been variations (cold winters and warm winters, rainy summers, etc.). These natural variations are already taken into account.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by glymor 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Definitely straw-man, this is the first time I have heard about "heat deaths" as a reason to care about global warming. Personally I am more worried about people losing their place to live, and ensuing conflicts over territory. I also doubt that using food as fuel for cars happens only as an anti-global-warming measure. I suspect since oil is expensive, people are looking for alternatives. Although there might be subsidies and carbon taxes messing with the price. Hm, now I am at 10 minutes and he is still talking about heat deaths. Not interesting (<hits stop button>).

netcan 18y ago

I agree that these are straw man arguments. I also reacted to them at first. But then he doesn't seem to rely on them too much. He admits that they are a metaphor. To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this) & the likely major regional problems caused by mass migrations and/or wars over resources. However, his general argument is that a lot of money is being spent stupidly, very stupidly. I think that he is correct & that he makes that point. I am still hesitant to take his side on this. I have some major problems with this approach: (1) World Government - At the best of times governments are inefficient. For normal maintenance issues like how to run infrastructure, hospital systems, school systems & such they make mistakes, but they get by. Once issues become election winning issues, the debate gets really dumb. this is not only a central focus issue, it is a very technical issue. As he suggests, this is complicated & technical & every action needs to be weighed up. It's inefficient to simply take an ideological stance (renewable energy, energy efficiency, hybrid cars, etc) & get behind anything that promotes it. It is exponentially more rational to make this decision like an accountant creating a cash flow strategy. Unfortunately, it is impossible for a political process such as this to take on an accountant like decision making process. Political debates need to be much more dumbed down to be possible. In this case, this process can be seen as being conducted by the 'Government of the World,' a body very weak in the existence department, never mind the efficiency department. So in a real sense, if a policy can't be chanted by a mob, it cannot be pursued. Certainly not over the 50+ year period necessary. I just don't think that his 'plan' is a possibility. The political structure & decision making process here is our tool. We have a wood. He is proposing building a house from bricks. (2) Maybe panic is Necessary - Many predict that there is indeed a need for panic. That is possibly because of point of no return due to feedback. There are two kinds of feedback: the physical kind such as methane releases from melting permafrost, the political kind due to climate related political consequences such as a Chinese famine or a Pakistan/India war related to river flows. (3) Economic models break down at these sorts of concepts. Comparing economic outputs between two scenarios where one of them includes mass starvation is apples to oranges.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this) This will most likely be solved by growing food in Canada and Siberia.
- netcan 18y ago
  The idea that new land will become available at a perfect replacement rate is a little bit up in the air. Anyway, even if this does happen, the adjustment period could starve 2 billion people over several decades or more. Large scale grain production is pretty optimised. That means it's very sensitive to any changes in the environment. Even if melted Siberian permafrost did provide a wheat growing hectare for every hectare lost down hear in Australia, it could take decades to shift production, optimise methods, industries & crop varieties. BTW, this may be another downside of GM. A kind of 'more of the same' to monocropping.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
viggity 18y ago
"I would have liked to see him address issues like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this)" We grow so much food it is absurd. In the 1940's the average yield for corn was 40-50 bushels/acre. Today it is 180, almost all of that increase is simply from better statistics used in breeding practices, an Ag companies have barely scratched the surface when it comes to using genetics to improve yields. If there is a food crisis, it won't be the lack of food that is the problem, it will be politicians and despots at the root of the problem.

gibsonf1 18y ago

What I wonder about is why nobody seems to be talking about the lack of correlation between global temperature and global warming theories. My understanding is that there has been increasing cooling in the last decade, with the coolest year this past year. Where exactly is the warming? (This is not to question the warming that occurred up to 1998)

axod 18y ago
"The emperors new clothes" Don't mention the truth! Just smile, wave and say the clothes look lovely.
- netcan 18y ago
  So are you suggesting that trends mean global temperatures should be obvious to any casual observer or that the technicalities of policy decisions should be?
Devilboy 18y ago
Warming / cooling pattern for the last decade or so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming...
- axod 18y ago
  You can't conclude anything from such a small period taken in isolation.
- viggity 18y ago
  I'm sorry, but unless they had the same equipment in the same places in the 1940s as they do today, these numbers are probably bullshit.
Tichy 18y ago
I think the climatologists are capable of including natural cycles into their calculations. Global warming is not about absolute warming every year, it is about deviations from the expected temperatures. Since it is only a couple of degrees, it is unlikely that an individual would even notice it. Would you notice if one year is on average one degree warmer than the previous one? There have always been variations (cold winters and warm winters, rainy summers, etc.). These natural variations are already taken into account.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]