7 ms·

Global Warming Delusions

103 points by Rod 17y ago

madair 17y ago
Fair-warning, this IS a WSJ article, and thus should be well-salted when it comes to their editorial stance on the facts in question.
- Rod 17y ago
  And it's written by someone who has over 40 years of experience in climate modeling... Have you even read the article??
  - madair 17y ago
    Yes I did, and I noted mainly a fear of fear of global warming. Perhaps this concerned scientist would really rather the public not think about it too much?
- ccc3 17y ago
  Which facts did you find to be editorialized, specifically?
  - madair 17y ago
    Ummm, it's an opinion page, selected by the editorial staff.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
This article is from Oct. 2007. Not saying it's irrelevant, just that I didn't realize it at first.
dublinclontarf 17y ago
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.
- sachinag 17y ago
  Agreed, which is why I'm sure that someone responded to it in kind. But, alas, search technology doesn't seem to be there yet. Or maybe my Google-fu sucks this morning.
- conflux0 17y ago
  I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    A little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.
    - robotrout 17y ago
      Well, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately. Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"? You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we let you. When you ignore what everybody knows, that the climate is warming regardless of human contribution, in the endless climate cycle that's 4 billion years old, we let you. You've defined the game to be, humans are causing extra global warming (you leave out the 'extra') and we let you. We've handicapped ourselves quite severely in this 'debate', so that you'll at least play with us. That you take advantage of this handicapping with not even a "thank you" is what is intellectually dishonest. So, this author makes the claim that there may be benefits to warmer climate. He's playing your game. He's bowing to your religion, by saying the words "warmer climate". But you're not happy. It's intellectually dishonest. Every action has costs and benefits. Obviously there would be benefits from a warmer climate. It's intellectually dishonest for you to claim otherwise. Do they outweigh the costs? I honestly don't know. We're a global community, right? A longer growing season in the temperate latitudes vs a shorter growing season in the tropical. Does this result in more food or less? I don't know (although I suspect it does). More people running their AC in the south vs less people running their heaters in the north. Is this a power savings or a power sink? (I suspect this ones goes to you, as heating is more efficient than cooling). There's a ton of analysis that could be done here, before you know the answer to this question. For you to just say "intellectually dishonest" without considering any of it is perhaps a result of your bias.
radu_floricica 17y ago
He's not alone, but the media and public somehow only listen to the other guy. I read Collapse, by Jared Diamond - the same kind of level-headedness (or more). Despite the title and the subject of the book there is no panic, only clear analysis. And guess which threat he considers by far the worst? Yup, deforestation. Pretty much everything by Jared Diamond is a good read, btw.
vinutheraj 17y ago
I don't know if it's an evidence of global warming or not but the normal temperature at our institute has risen 7 degree celsius from what is was at this same time last year, which is kinda freaky and we are literally really trying hard to survive here !! source - http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php
- huherto 17y ago
  ten days is hardly a sample.
  - pradocchia 17y ago
    for what it's worth, climate change does seems quite pronounced in some countries (india, china), but that may be more due to local environmental damage than global trends per se. harbin, china, for example, used to experience 4~5 foot snow storms every winter. you'd open the door and there'd be a wall of snow. these days you're lucky to see a foot. some locals will say it's global warming--which it may be--but northern china has also undergone extensive deforestation in the last 60 years. you'd expect changes in precipitation if you cut down 75% of the tree cover.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science -- even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate. Absolutely
david927 17y ago
The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad. There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright. As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing the reader another side exists.
  - baguasquirrel 17y ago
    Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.
    - robotrout 17y ago
      I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)
quoderat 17y ago
Riposte: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-darling/draper-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-darli...
radu_floricica 17y ago
Copenhagen Consensus: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...
- Tichy 17y ago
  It's not a consensus, at least I don't agree with it. I think the whole thing is mostly marketing, as is evident by the TED talk where lomborg presents mostly strawman argumentation (I don't think I have heard worries about heat deaths elsewhere, yet he dwells on them, as an example).
quoderat 17y ago
Of course, the real danger of climate change is carbon dioxide leading to the buildup of hydrogen sulfide in the oceans (thus killing them, and about everything on land): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.ht... No one seems to know about this, but it's a far more probable -- even extremely likely threat -- given what we know right now. Also: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_ward_qa?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_...
mmphosis 17y ago
Look into global ocean temperatures over the past 100 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectiv...
dfsdfsdsfdsf 17y ago
Start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...
grandalf 17y ago
today one out of three kids fears an environmental apocalypse. Fears about global warming (and probably visions of a fiery inferno) are what kids' nightmares are made of these days. Why not just focus on dirty water and smelly air? That is reason enough, in my opinion, to be responsible and forward thinking about the environment.
- grandalf 17y ago
  wow I'm curious why this was modded down... does anyone have an argument for why an extreme, apocalyptic message is necessary or helpful? (other than "well it worked for Christianity!")
Tichy 17y ago
Interesting, although I must say I was never worried that humans would go extinct because of global warming. Just not so keen on all the upheaval and territory fighting that might happen along the way. But I guess in that sense it kind of selfish to worry about global warming. Maybe the poor people in Greenland deserve some warmer years, and I should gladly chill for their benefit (chill because I think it would be getting colder where I live, if the gulf stream became diverted).
mcantelon 17y ago
War is a much simpler problem than global warming, yet we can't agree its validity or stop it. Given this, both war and global warming are probably inevitable until evolution produces a more rational and forward-thinking dominant species.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable until Earth provides unlimited resources. "Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably inevitable until Earth is more robust.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    War is a method to divide resources, but so is trade. And those parts of the world that trade with each other by and large do not go to war with each other. In fact, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of wars between countries that believed in trade and countries that did not believe in trade: this is called the Cold War. After this we started getting wars between countries that were part of the global trading community and countries that weren't, over issues that would largely go away or be resolved peaceably if those countries joined the global trading community. This is called "globalization", and it's what all those anarchists tend to start riots about every time the larger countries want to have a conference about it.
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      to paraphrase your rebuttal: Earth already has enough resources.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        It really doesn't in the long run, but it turns out you get so many more net resources through trade anyway that even in a shortage you're better off with trade than war.
dejb 17y ago
You've got to remember this guy is speaking from the perspective of a biologist. To him an economic events like the like the Global Financial Crisis are pretty much irrelevant. Even if global warming had a an effect like 50 years of GFC it wouldn't harm the world biologically but it would totally suck to live through. Even if the necessary relocation of many people happened in an orderly fashion the cost would be huge. Imagine cost of abandoning most of a significant city because the climate could no longer support the population.

103 points by Rod 17y ago

Fair-warning, this IS a WSJ article, and thus should be well-salted when it comes to their editorial stance on the facts in question.

Rod 17y ago
And it's written by someone who has over 40 years of experience in climate modeling... Have you even read the article??
- madair 17y ago
  Yes I did, and I noted mainly a fear of fear of global warming. Perhaps this concerned scientist would really rather the public not think about it too much?
ccc3 17y ago
Which facts did you find to be editorialized, specifically?
- madair 17y ago
  Ummm, it's an opinion page, selected by the editorial staff.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

This article is from Oct. 2007. Not saying it's irrelevant, just that I didn't realize it at first.

dublinclontarf 17y ago

This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.

sachinag 17y ago
Agreed, which is why I'm sure that someone responded to it in kind. But, alas, search technology doesn't seem to be there yet. Or maybe my Google-fu sucks this morning.
conflux0 17y ago
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  A little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    Well, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately. Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"? You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we let you. When you ignore what everybody knows, that the climate is warming regardless of human contribution, in the endless climate cycle that's 4 billion years old, we let you. You've defined the game to be, humans are causing extra global warming (you leave out the 'extra') and we let you. We've handicapped ourselves quite severely in this 'debate', so that you'll at least play with us. That you take advantage of this handicapping with not even a "thank you" is what is intellectually dishonest. So, this author makes the claim that there may be benefits to warmer climate. He's playing your game. He's bowing to your religion, by saying the words "warmer climate". But you're not happy. It's intellectually dishonest. Every action has costs and benefits. Obviously there would be benefits from a warmer climate. It's intellectually dishonest for you to claim otherwise. Do they outweigh the costs? I honestly don't know. We're a global community, right? A longer growing season in the temperate latitudes vs a shorter growing season in the tropical. Does this result in more food or less? I don't know (although I suspect it does). More people running their AC in the south vs less people running their heaters in the north. Is this a power savings or a power sink? (I suspect this ones goes to you, as heating is more efficient than cooling). There's a ton of analysis that could be done here, before you know the answer to this question. For you to just say "intellectually dishonest" without considering any of it is perhaps a result of your bias.

radu_floricica 17y ago

He's not alone, but the media and public somehow only listen to the other guy. I read Collapse, by Jared Diamond - the same kind of level-headedness (or more). Despite the title and the subject of the book there is no panic, only clear analysis. And guess which threat he considers by far the worst? Yup, deforestation. Pretty much everything by Jared Diamond is a good read, btw.

vinutheraj 17y ago

I don't know if it's an evidence of global warming or not but the normal temperature at our institute has risen 7 degree celsius from what is was at this same time last year, which is kinda freaky and we are literally really trying hard to survive here !! source - http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php

huherto 17y ago
ten days is hardly a sample.
- pradocchia 17y ago
  for what it's worth, climate change does seems quite pronounced in some countries (india, china), but that may be more due to local environmental damage than global trends per se. harbin, china, for example, used to experience 4~5 foot snow storms every winter. you'd open the door and there'd be a wall of snow. these days you're lucky to see a foot. some locals will say it's global warming--which it may be--but northern china has also undergone extensive deforestation in the last 60 years. you'd expect changes in precipitation if you cut down 75% of the tree cover.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science -- even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate. Absolutely

david927 17y ago

The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad. There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright. As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing the reader another side exists.
- baguasquirrel 17y ago
  Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)

quoderat 17y ago

Riposte: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-darling/draper-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-darli...

radu_floricica 17y ago

Copenhagen Consensus: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...

Tichy 17y ago
It's not a consensus, at least I don't agree with it. I think the whole thing is mostly marketing, as is evident by the TED talk where lomborg presents mostly strawman argumentation (I don't think I have heard worries about heat deaths elsewhere, yet he dwells on them, as an example).

quoderat 17y ago

Of course, the real danger of climate change is carbon dioxide leading to the buildup of hydrogen sulfide in the oceans (thus killing them, and about everything on land): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.ht... No one seems to know about this, but it's a far more probable -- even extremely likely threat -- given what we know right now. Also: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_ward_qa?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_...

mmphosis 17y ago

Look into global ocean temperatures over the past 100 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectiv...

dfsdfsdsfdsf 17y ago

Start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...

grandalf 17y ago

today one out of three kids fears an environmental apocalypse. Fears about global warming (and probably visions of a fiery inferno) are what kids' nightmares are made of these days. Why not just focus on dirty water and smelly air? That is reason enough, in my opinion, to be responsible and forward thinking about the environment.

grandalf 17y ago
wow I'm curious why this was modded down... does anyone have an argument for why an extreme, apocalyptic message is necessary or helpful? (other than "well it worked for Christianity!")

Tichy 17y ago

Interesting, although I must say I was never worried that humans would go extinct because of global warming. Just not so keen on all the upheaval and territory fighting that might happen along the way. But I guess in that sense it kind of selfish to worry about global warming. Maybe the poor people in Greenland deserve some warmer years, and I should gladly chill for their benefit (chill because I think it would be getting colder where I live, if the gulf stream became diverted).

mcantelon 17y ago

War is a much simpler problem than global warming, yet we can't agree its validity or stop it. Given this, both war and global warming are probably inevitable until evolution produces a more rational and forward-thinking dominant species.

jpwagner 17y ago
In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable until Earth provides unlimited resources. "Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably inevitable until Earth is more robust.
- philwelch 17y ago
  War is a method to divide resources, but so is trade. And those parts of the world that trade with each other by and large do not go to war with each other. In fact, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of wars between countries that believed in trade and countries that did not believe in trade: this is called the Cold War. After this we started getting wars between countries that were part of the global trading community and countries that weren't, over issues that would largely go away or be resolved peaceably if those countries joined the global trading community. This is called "globalization", and it's what all those anarchists tend to start riots about every time the larger countries want to have a conference about it.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    to paraphrase your rebuttal: Earth already has enough resources.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      It really doesn't in the long run, but it turns out you get so many more net resources through trade anyway that even in a shortage you're better off with trade than war.

dejb 17y ago

You've got to remember this guy is speaking from the perspective of a biologist. To him an economic events like the like the Global Financial Crisis are pretty much irrelevant. Even if global warming had a an effect like 50 years of GFC it wouldn't harm the world biologically but it would totally suck to live through. Even if the necessary relocation of many people happened in an orderly fashion the cost would be huge. Imagine cost of abandoning most of a significant city because the climate could no longer support the population.