6 ms·

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 "in

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.

Alex3917 17y ago
I never claimed there couldn't be benefits of global warming. Certainly there will be benefits as well as drawbacks. But the thesis of the article is that the evidence of the serious consequences of global warming is quite thin. Saying that there will be benefits of global warming doesn't support that thesis; when people say the consequences of global warming will be severe, they are already taking into account the benefits.
- robotrout 17y ago
  > They are already taking into account the benefits. Really? Are you sure? What people? I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?
  - lutorm 17y ago
    I'm sure if you look at the thousands of references in the IPCC Working Group II report on impacts and vulnerability you'll find plenty. Or did you already look there?
    - lutorm 17y ago
      Yeah thanks for downvoting an actual suggestion among all the hot air.
calambrac 17y ago
There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I feel like needs to be tweaked just to see what happens. But another far more important reason for me is that it seems like the actions needed to stop the possible human contribution to global warming are Good Things whether they're actually causing that particular problem or not. Spewing less crap into the air? Sounds great. More energy efficient cars/trucks/devices/appliances? Sounds great. Paying attention to energy costs expended on lighting, and as a side effect maybe getting to see stars in the sky over a city sometime? Awesome. I always wonder about the people who say we shouldn't take action. Because it's too expensive? That seems to miss the basic observation that the economy exists to serve the wants and needs of the people within it, not the other way around - if people decide this is something they value, that they want to work on, the economics will work out. I really think its something more basic, the traditional dichotomy between the personal and the common. Or maybe it really is just a cynical response from people in a current position of comfort who see what they're doing right now as threatened by any changes that need to be made.
- robotrout 17y ago
  It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance. You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard. You say I should spend $1000 as my share of the cost to paint a picture of a snow capped mountain on the ugly building next door. Everybody in the neighborhood will benefit from having such a beautiful mural, so what is my problem with coughing up the money? I would probably just waste it on fixing the transmission and brakes on my car anyway. It is not your resources that you are spending. It is MY resources you are spending. I choose to donate them to drilling wells for waterless villages in Africa. Who are you to tell me that I'm a bastard for wanting to do that instead of your project? Don't give me this moralistic sermon about greedy people demanding proof of a problem before coughing up the funds to fix it, when they should just smile and give the funds because it's "a good thing anyway". I reject this 100 times more than I reject somebody who is just too lazy to learn the true facts of the issue. Give me people honestly trying to reach an intellectual meeting of the minds any day over this sort of moralistic bullying.

Alex3917 17y ago

I never claimed there couldn't be benefits of global warming. Certainly there will be benefits as well as drawbacks. But the thesis of the article is that the evidence of the serious consequences of global warming is quite thin. Saying that there will be benefits of global warming doesn't support that thesis; when people say the consequences of global warming will be severe, they are already taking into account the benefits.

robotrout 17y ago
> They are already taking into account the benefits. Really? Are you sure? What people? I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?
- lutorm 17y ago
  I'm sure if you look at the thousands of references in the IPCC Working Group II report on impacts and vulnerability you'll find plenty. Or did you already look there?
  - lutorm 17y ago
    Yeah thanks for downvoting an actual suggestion among all the hot air.

calambrac 17y ago

There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I feel like needs to be tweaked just to see what happens. But another far more important reason for me is that it seems like the actions needed to stop the possible human contribution to global warming are Good Things whether they're actually causing that particular problem or not. Spewing less crap into the air? Sounds great. More energy efficient cars/trucks/devices/appliances? Sounds great. Paying attention to energy costs expended on lighting, and as a side effect maybe getting to see stars in the sky over a city sometime? Awesome. I always wonder about the people who say we shouldn't take action. Because it's too expensive? That seems to miss the basic observation that the economy exists to serve the wants and needs of the people within it, not the other way around - if people decide this is something they value, that they want to work on, the economics will work out. I really think its something more basic, the traditional dichotomy between the personal and the common. Or maybe it really is just a cynical response from people in a current position of comfort who see what they're doing right now as threatened by any changes that need to be made.

robotrout 17y ago
It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance. You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard. You say I should spend $1000 as my share of the cost to paint a picture of a snow capped mountain on the ugly building next door. Everybody in the neighborhood will benefit from having such a beautiful mural, so what is my problem with coughing up the money? I would probably just waste it on fixing the transmission and brakes on my car anyway. It is not your resources that you are spending. It is MY resources you are spending. I choose to donate them to drilling wells for waterless villages in Africa. Who are you to tell me that I'm a bastard for wanting to do that instead of your project? Don't give me this moralistic sermon about greedy people demanding proof of a problem before coughing up the funds to fix it, when they should just smile and give the funds because it's "a good thing anyway". I reject this 100 times more than I reject somebody who is just too lazy to learn the true facts of the issue. Give me people honestly trying to reach an intellectual meeting of the minds any day over this sort of moralistic bullying.