7 ms·

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

47 points by clarkm 13y ago

thesis 13y ago
It must be because of all of those carbon credits people purchase.
- retrogradeorbit 13y ago
  and now we can solve water shortage crisis with water credits.
dizzystar 13y ago
I never knew what to think of the whole Climate Change thing. I consider myself a careful skeptic, going on the assumption that the science is much too large to put together. Although I never really questioned the idea that there is evidence of warming or man-made warming, I always questioned the the stated impact. I've always felt that much of what was presented to us was exaggerated, and I've always felt strongly that the climate scientists were too closely bound to politics, and thus whatever truth was found was obscured by rhetoric. There was also several solutions presented that skated well past the line of absurdity. [1] Here's to hoping that the climate panels have learned from the mistakes of their past and begin to offer truly critical and balanced opinions, no longer employing scare-tactics. The hard-core pro-CC crowd accused me of being all sorts of things I am not, such as a wasteful litterbox. Actually, I purchase very few things and certainly never buy Palm Oil or other items that are environmentally destructive. I don't use plastic bags, and I don't drive a car. In regards to this article, I still don't know what to think. I really wish the report itself would come out before the media jumps all over it and destroys the meaning of this paper, as it is rather important. If the report does say this, I would wonder what changes have occurred in the climate thinking and world to wheel back this much. [1]http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-spewing-so2-idea-to-stop-global-warming.html http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-spew...
- 7952 13y ago
  Personally I think that climate change is a bit of a distraction. There are lots of good reasons for cutting pollution beyond carbon. Moving to sustainable energy would be worth doing even if climate change didn't exist simply to cut the health impact of dirty energy.
  - cdash 13y ago
    My biggest problem with many of the people that warn of global warming is they proclaim we need to take serious action and then ignore the most plausible solution which is nuclear power. I know not everyone is against using nuclear power but if global warming is a serious issue and I think it is plausible that it is thats where we should be heading, as a bonus nuclear power is great anyways.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      Because nuclear power comes with plenty of short/medium term problems as we are seeing today in Fukushima. Much better to exhaust every ounce of potential out of safe, clean renewable sources first.
      - waps 13y ago
        I thought the point was to reduce carbon emissions ?("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save) And please skip the "but this one version now in the lab ..." speech.
        eru 13y ago
        > ("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save) I don't think that's true. Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
threeseed 13y ago
To say that the benefits of increased vegetation outweighs the rise in sea levels and summer temperatures is breathtaking in its stupidity and cruelty. The people who are the most affected by climate change are the poorest and least able to relocate. In which way does humanity benefit if millions die in Africa and South East Asia whilst wealthy industrialists get to farm further north than previously. It's also bizarre to be thinking so short term. So we benefit if there is a 1.2 degree increase in the next 70 years. What about the 70 years after that, and after that ?
- refurb 13y ago
  Why would millions die? Rising sea levels won't come as a tsunami, it's a slow,gradual rise in sea levels. Of course this will cause havoc for the world's poor, but it's not like we can't plan for it.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Well, for better or for worse, since millions of poor people die each year from readily vaccinated or treated diseases like polio and tuberculosis, it just doesn't seem like the rich nations of the world have the political will to properly take care of them. (Bill Gates is trying though.)
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Because millions are dying today as a result of preventable malnutrition or disease. What makes you think the world is going to act to save poor people in SE Asia or Africa ? And slow changes to climate don't instantly cause millions of deaths it is gradual as well.
- Clanan 13y ago
  You're glossing over quite a bit. The article says the temp increases will occur mostly in winter and at night, which could save many lives. Increased vegetation (not just more north farming) means more food for more people. The IPCC agrees that sea levels will only rise 1 to 3 feet; do you have a source for your claim that "millions" will die from this? (What I can find just talks about 1+ meters of increase.) The article also claims the data shows that not only were our previous predictions too high, but they might still be too high. I don't want to sound argumentative but since this issue is so politicized, I'd rather see data and sources than accusations of "stupidity and cruelty".
lisper 13y ago
Given that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, I would recommend taking anything it says about climate change with a giant hunk o' sodium chloride.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  Have you found something wrong in the article? This would be a more constructive comment.
  - hannibal5 13y ago
    Climate skepticism is mostly Anglo Saxon phenomenon and there are studies that show it. Google it up. These tools get payed to write this stuff.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    Pointing out that the article has been published by a corporation who's agenda is as much ideological as it is commercial, and which doesn't shy away from publishing outright lies whilst pursuing that agenda is a constructive contribution imo. Especially since most of us, including the author (who btw is also strongly ideologically motivated) aren't climate scientists and the actual report isn't out yet. This is not a particularly credible source, and definitely not an unbiased one, trying to assign meaning to as yet unverifiable data.
  - lisper 13y ago
    I would have thought it to be self-evident, but since you ask... It's an opinion piece written by a notorious climate-change denialist. Its main source is a document that hasn't been released yet. It is full of breathless hyperbolic speculation, e.g.: "Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings." It puts the emphasis on the "facts" (because there are precious few actual facts) that support Murdoch's political position and downplays the facts that undermine that position, e.g. "Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is." and "...there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm." i.e. because things might not be getting quite as bad quite as fast as was predicted, that everything is therefore going to be hunky-dory and we should all stop worrying and just carry on burning fossil fuels with abandon, because, hey, we have a 50-50 shot that it will all turn out to be a net win. I could go on, but life is too short to spend too much time debunking creationists, truthers, and denialists. If you want more, start with this: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking-bad-matt-ridley-exits-wall-street-journal-column-as-a-climate-science-denier-of-the-third-kind/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking...
aethr 13y ago
It's worth noting that the IPCC is considered by some to be too conservative in its estimates [1]. Just before they released their 2007 report, a paper was published in Science comparing the predictions from the 2001 report with actual changes in global temperature and sea level. [2] While the 2001 report had forecasted a rise in temperature of 0.15C - 0.35C, the actual rise over that period was 0.33C. Meanwhile the rise in sea level over that period exceeded the IPCC's predicted maximums. So while the IPCC may be "dialing back" their predictions, they do have a known tendency to err on the side of conservatism. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Clim... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
- specialist 13y ago
  I believe, but hope I'm proven wrong, that climate change has passed the tipping point. The earth's massive carbon sinks are now sources. Melting tundra, burning forests, boiling oceans (acidification). If we stopped all human CH4 and CO2 production (stop the economy), the atmospheric levels will still increase. I also hope that we humans are clever enough to figure out how to sequester CO2 on a massive, industrial scale. Many humans will certainly survive. But it'll be a bumpy ride.
chrismealy 13y ago
Matt Ridley should stick to blowing up banks and leave the climate alone. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-northern-rock-the-planet/ http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-north...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
quink 13y ago
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley If you want to have an idea as to his economic credentials, he's, in a nutshell, responsible for the first bank run in the UK in about 130 years. Here are just the effects of the state I live in: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-impacts/queensland http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-scien...
- vixen99 13y ago
  So try this one: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ Nothing to do with Ridley. Presumably there are lot of stupid people in Australia according to you and judging from your recent election.
  - quink 13y ago
    OK, let's watch this. 0:23-ish: No one in the mainstream media in Australia has ever told anyone about Henry fucking Ergas? Well, this is full of shit already. He also ran Concept Economics. > Concept Economics, the consultancy that recently estimated the costs of the National Broadband Network outweighed the benefits by up to $20 billion, has gone into administration. Sheesh, what is it with these climate skeptics and their businesses going under? 0:48: Lack of action across the world? Most expensive carbon tax in the world? Kind sir, I have a graph to cure that ailment: http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Faveragetaxrates.png http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%... Austria is AUT. Australia is AUS, in case there's any confusion following the whiplash you just got by this fact-whipping. 1:18: Thank you for that idiocy. Australia is the world's highest CO2 per capita emitter with any population to speak of, apart from the UAE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse.... It has the dirtiest power station in the entire OECD, which alone produce 1/1800th the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station You know what, I'm done. I will go on, but considering such a litany of error within a minute and a half, I can spend my time vastly better. But like I said, I'll watch it for amusement value. Meanwhile, you go ahead and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eo... Edit: OK, just wanted to add that the carbon tax does not "cost" 10 billion a year by any means. That's near enough the revenue being raised by the government through carbon pricing and near enough all of it makes it back into the economy through various means. One example, there's the rise in the tax-free threshold. Apparently billions of dollars being spent in removing the lowest income earners in the country from the income tax system is money wasted on reducing carbon dioxide a fraction of a percent? I don't think the story goes quite like that. All this is just another example of Christopher Monckton displaying a serious case of illiteracy of various sorts: http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sources-and-maths.pdf http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sour... You're a fool. Thank you for your skepticism, but in this case you've been had. By all means keep it up though, just double-check and don't be misled :) Edit 2: $3.2 quadrillion for each degree? Sigh, and you actually were brave enough to show this crap to other people? Wow. If you really wanted to do it on the cheap (and that number is still very made up), you could do it for much less, albeit with side-effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_...
rxp 13y ago
Politicians like Matt Ridley can say what they like. I'll believe that things have changed when experts in the field begin to say so, and not a moment sooner.
- khawkins 13y ago
  Your stubborn stance on the issue sounds like the type of response a religious fundamentalist would give when questioned about their beliefs. The "experts in the field" have been shown to make excessive predictions in recent years, perhaps we should keep an open mind about who to trust?
  - rxp 13y ago
    Keeping an open mind is one thing, but if you ever take what any politician says at face value, then you're nuts.
- jhales 13y ago
  I think he is quoting the experts in the field...
acqq 13y ago
Author: because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. Note how unmathematical this approach is. The whole premse of the article and the content are: "There are different numbers, some strange qualifiers in front of them which changed but which I'll ignore, but because I compare just the numbers, they are smaller than before so we can happily continue with global warming." The facts are different. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-clim... To hold the temperature increase to about 1.5 degrees, the globe would need to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then have negative emissions. The author's article ignores the timeframes too, like it doesn't matter at all.
gavanwoolery 13y ago
I'm not really a scientist, so I can't take any sides here, but I would like to point out a few things (make your own rational judgments). I do know the true principles of science, if little about its practice. Real science is unbiased. Everyone in these threads seems to get so heated that their "side" is right (I've been guilty of it as well, its an easy trap to fall into). Well, real science does not care about sides, it cares about boiling down a system of variables into a probable hypothesis. Even the most likely hypotheses have been shattered - I'm not saying that is the case, but sometimes climatology feels more like faith than science. Real science aims to prove its results wrong, not to prove them right. Climatology/meteorology/etc are actually very difficult types of science because you cannot simple put the earth in a confined test area where you can tweak the variables on a small level. Yes, we all know that increase in CO2 = increase in greenhouse effect, that is child's science and not a real question. The real question is how much impact do human beings really have on the atmosphere, and to what degree should we change our behavior (if at all) based on that? There are so many variables that are difficult to predict (or even determine in realtime) - the sun's energy output, how much CO2 gets processed by trees, how much CO2 gets trapped in the upper atmosphere (it happens, despite it being heavier than other types of atmosphere), underwater volcanic activity, and so forth. That, and try doing a thermodynamic simulation at earth's scale - the best we can do is very crudely rough it. That said, there is no reason we should trash our environment just because we don't know what is going on - there are a million reasons to gravitate towards clean energy (in particular, sustainable energy). All I can say is, if you are a real scientist, constantly question your own beliefs, don't fight for them.
spinlock 13y ago
I just wanted to point out that the author is a politician and not a scientist. Also, the globe has warmed by 6-8 degrees F since the last ice age. The temperature difference that the author considers "beneficial" is the difference between Manhattan being a vibrant city and being buried under a mile of ice.
- valar_m 13y ago
  You are mistaken. He is, in actual fact, a scientist. Ridley has a DPhil degree in zoology from Oxford, and he's a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
  - spinlock 13y ago
    I stand corrected. The author is a politician and a terrible scientist.
brohoolio 13y ago
Anyone else think it's weird how when you click on the WSJ link it drops you three links deep into WSJ? I imagine most folks use new tabs, but this was kind of weird trying to back button out of the WSJ site.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
Here is my thought on climate change, and something each party overlooks while paying scientists to do research that supports their point. Lets just pretend that hypothetically, we are 100% sure global warming is not caused by human-manufactured pollution. With that being the case, what do we do? Take off pollution controls? Turn every city into a place where you need to wear a mask to breathe? If you've ever been to Shanghai or even Los Angeles it is pretty obvious there are problems with pollution beyond damaging the ozone. Personally, I think that millions of people being able to actually breathe is more important than chemical company x stock price going up because they didn't have to "waste" money on proper disposal and soot filters... The fact that we get bogged down in a discussion of whether the ozone is being damaged and overlook whether our lungs are being damaged just blows my mind.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  > The fact that we get bogged down in a discussion of whether the ozone is being damaged and overlook whether our lungs are being damaged just blows my mind. Not to diminish your point, which I completely agree with, but the current discussion about climate change is not related to the ozone layer, but is primarily about greenhouse gasses and associated global warming. The former was down to pervasive use of CFCs, which have now mostly been regulated away; the latter is down to (in particular) carbon emissions.
- seandhi 13y ago
  CO2 does not damage the Ozone layer. CO2 is not soot. CO2 does not damage our lungs. Even though it has recently been added to the EPA's list of pollutants (because of the climate change debate), CO2 is not even what people would readily identify as "pollution" - like chemicals that irritate eyes, lungs or sinuses. The debate is how much - if any - negative impact is being done to our climate by a chemical that is an inevitable byproduct of the combustion of carbon-based fuels (which, outside of nuclear and hydro, offer the cheapest source of energy), and is combatting the risk of negative impact worth the economic impact to our economy. I am not making a statement about climate change. I am only saying, respectfully, that you deeply misunderstand the debate.
- smsm42 13y ago
ris 13y ago
I invite people to read a bit of background information on Matt Ridley before they read this article.
- valar_m 13y ago
  Why? Did the author make an argument based on a claim of subject matter expertise?
znowi 13y ago
Climate Change (rebranded Global Warming) is such a heated and controversial topic, including in academia, that turns decent people into crazed maniacs (think of Apple or sport team fans). I suggest to stay away from it until something conclusive emerges from the study.

47 points by clarkm 13y ago

thesis 13y ago

It must be because of all of those carbon credits people purchase.

retrogradeorbit 13y ago
and now we can solve water shortage crisis with water credits.

dizzystar 13y ago

I never knew what to think of the whole Climate Change thing. I consider myself a careful skeptic, going on the assumption that the science is much too large to put together. Although I never really questioned the idea that there is evidence of warming or man-made warming, I always questioned the the stated impact. I've always felt that much of what was presented to us was exaggerated, and I've always felt strongly that the climate scientists were too closely bound to politics, and thus whatever truth was found was obscured by rhetoric. There was also several solutions presented that skated well past the line of absurdity. [1] Here's to hoping that the climate panels have learned from the mistakes of their past and begin to offer truly critical and balanced opinions, no longer employing scare-tactics. The hard-core pro-CC crowd accused me of being all sorts of things I am not, such as a wasteful litterbox. Actually, I purchase very few things and certainly never buy Palm Oil or other items that are environmentally destructive. I don't use plastic bags, and I don't drive a car. In regards to this article, I still don't know what to think. I really wish the report itself would come out before the media jumps all over it and destroys the meaning of this paper, as it is rather important. If the report does say this, I would wonder what changes have occurred in the climate thinking and world to wheel back this much. [1]http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-spewing-so2-idea-to-stop-global-warming.html http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-spew...

7952 13y ago
Personally I think that climate change is a bit of a distraction. There are lots of good reasons for cutting pollution beyond carbon. Moving to sustainable energy would be worth doing even if climate change didn't exist simply to cut the health impact of dirty energy.
- cdash 13y ago
  My biggest problem with many of the people that warn of global warming is they proclaim we need to take serious action and then ignore the most plausible solution which is nuclear power. I know not everyone is against using nuclear power but if global warming is a serious issue and I think it is plausible that it is thats where we should be heading, as a bonus nuclear power is great anyways.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Because nuclear power comes with plenty of short/medium term problems as we are seeing today in Fukushima. Much better to exhaust every ounce of potential out of safe, clean renewable sources first.
    - waps 13y ago
      I thought the point was to reduce carbon emissions ?("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save) And please skip the "but this one version now in the lab ..." speech.
      - eru 13y ago
        > ("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save) I don't think that's true. Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago

To say that the benefits of increased vegetation outweighs the rise in sea levels and summer temperatures is breathtaking in its stupidity and cruelty. The people who are the most affected by climate change are the poorest and least able to relocate. In which way does humanity benefit if millions die in Africa and South East Asia whilst wealthy industrialists get to farm further north than previously. It's also bizarre to be thinking so short term. So we benefit if there is a 1.2 degree increase in the next 70 years. What about the 70 years after that, and after that ?

refurb 13y ago
Why would millions die? Rising sea levels won't come as a tsunami, it's a slow,gradual rise in sea levels. Of course this will cause havoc for the world's poor, but it's not like we can't plan for it.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Well, for better or for worse, since millions of poor people die each year from readily vaccinated or treated diseases like polio and tuberculosis, it just doesn't seem like the rich nations of the world have the political will to properly take care of them. (Bill Gates is trying though.)
- threeseed 13y ago
  Because millions are dying today as a result of preventable malnutrition or disease. What makes you think the world is going to act to save poor people in SE Asia or Africa ? And slow changes to climate don't instantly cause millions of deaths it is gradual as well.
Clanan 13y ago
You're glossing over quite a bit. The article says the temp increases will occur mostly in winter and at night, which could save many lives. Increased vegetation (not just more north farming) means more food for more people. The IPCC agrees that sea levels will only rise 1 to 3 feet; do you have a source for your claim that "millions" will die from this? (What I can find just talks about 1+ meters of increase.) The article also claims the data shows that not only were our previous predictions too high, but they might still be too high. I don't want to sound argumentative but since this issue is so politicized, I'd rather see data and sources than accusations of "stupidity and cruelty".

lisper 13y ago

Given that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, I would recommend taking anything it says about climate change with a giant hunk o' sodium chloride.

shin_lao 13y ago
Have you found something wrong in the article? This would be a more constructive comment.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  Climate skepticism is mostly Anglo Saxon phenomenon and there are studies that show it. Google it up. These tools get payed to write this stuff.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  Pointing out that the article has been published by a corporation who's agenda is as much ideological as it is commercial, and which doesn't shy away from publishing outright lies whilst pursuing that agenda is a constructive contribution imo. Especially since most of us, including the author (who btw is also strongly ideologically motivated) aren't climate scientists and the actual report isn't out yet. This is not a particularly credible source, and definitely not an unbiased one, trying to assign meaning to as yet unverifiable data.
- lisper 13y ago
  I would have thought it to be self-evident, but since you ask... It's an opinion piece written by a notorious climate-change denialist. Its main source is a document that hasn't been released yet. It is full of breathless hyperbolic speculation, e.g.: "Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings." It puts the emphasis on the "facts" (because there are precious few actual facts) that support Murdoch's political position and downplays the facts that undermine that position, e.g. "Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is." and "...there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm." i.e. because things might not be getting quite as bad quite as fast as was predicted, that everything is therefore going to be hunky-dory and we should all stop worrying and just carry on burning fossil fuels with abandon, because, hey, we have a 50-50 shot that it will all turn out to be a net win. I could go on, but life is too short to spend too much time debunking creationists, truthers, and denialists. If you want more, start with this: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking-bad-matt-ridley-exits-wall-street-journal-column-as-a-climate-science-denier-of-the-third-kind/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking...

aethr 13y ago

It's worth noting that the IPCC is considered by some to be too conservative in its estimates [1]. Just before they released their 2007 report, a paper was published in Science comparing the predictions from the 2001 report with actual changes in global temperature and sea level. [2] While the 2001 report had forecasted a rise in temperature of 0.15C - 0.35C, the actual rise over that period was 0.33C. Meanwhile the rise in sea level over that period exceeded the IPCC's predicted maximums. So while the IPCC may be "dialing back" their predictions, they do have a known tendency to err on the side of conservatism. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Clim... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

specialist 13y ago
I believe, but hope I'm proven wrong, that climate change has passed the tipping point. The earth's massive carbon sinks are now sources. Melting tundra, burning forests, boiling oceans (acidification). If we stopped all human CH4 and CO2 production (stop the economy), the atmospheric levels will still increase. I also hope that we humans are clever enough to figure out how to sequester CO2 on a massive, industrial scale. Many humans will certainly survive. But it'll be a bumpy ride.

chrismealy 13y ago

Matt Ridley should stick to blowing up banks and leave the climate alone. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-northern-rock-the-planet/ http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-north...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

quink 13y ago

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley If you want to have an idea as to his economic credentials, he's, in a nutshell, responsible for the first bank run in the UK in about 130 years. Here are just the effects of the state I live in: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-impacts/queensland http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-scien...

vixen99 13y ago
So try this one: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ Nothing to do with Ridley. Presumably there are lot of stupid people in Australia according to you and judging from your recent election.
- quink 13y ago
  OK, let's watch this. 0:23-ish: No one in the mainstream media in Australia has ever told anyone about Henry fucking Ergas? Well, this is full of shit already. He also ran Concept Economics. > Concept Economics, the consultancy that recently estimated the costs of the National Broadband Network outweighed the benefits by up to $20 billion, has gone into administration. Sheesh, what is it with these climate skeptics and their businesses going under? 0:48: Lack of action across the world? Most expensive carbon tax in the world? Kind sir, I have a graph to cure that ailment: http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Faveragetaxrates.png http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%... Austria is AUT. Australia is AUS, in case there's any confusion following the whiplash you just got by this fact-whipping. 1:18: Thank you for that idiocy. Australia is the world's highest CO2 per capita emitter with any population to speak of, apart from the UAE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse.... It has the dirtiest power station in the entire OECD, which alone produce 1/1800th the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station You know what, I'm done. I will go on, but considering such a litany of error within a minute and a half, I can spend my time vastly better. But like I said, I'll watch it for amusement value. Meanwhile, you go ahead and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eo... Edit: OK, just wanted to add that the carbon tax does not "cost" 10 billion a year by any means. That's near enough the revenue being raised by the government through carbon pricing and near enough all of it makes it back into the economy through various means. One example, there's the rise in the tax-free threshold. Apparently billions of dollars being spent in removing the lowest income earners in the country from the income tax system is money wasted on reducing carbon dioxide a fraction of a percent? I don't think the story goes quite like that. All this is just another example of Christopher Monckton displaying a serious case of illiteracy of various sorts: http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sources-and-maths.pdf http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sour... You're a fool. Thank you for your skepticism, but in this case you've been had. By all means keep it up though, just double-check and don't be misled :) Edit 2: $3.2 quadrillion for each degree? Sigh, and you actually were brave enough to show this crap to other people? Wow. If you really wanted to do it on the cheap (and that number is still very made up), you could do it for much less, albeit with side-effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_...

rxp 13y ago

Politicians like Matt Ridley can say what they like. I'll believe that things have changed when experts in the field begin to say so, and not a moment sooner.

khawkins 13y ago
Your stubborn stance on the issue sounds like the type of response a religious fundamentalist would give when questioned about their beliefs. The "experts in the field" have been shown to make excessive predictions in recent years, perhaps we should keep an open mind about who to trust?
- rxp 13y ago
  Keeping an open mind is one thing, but if you ever take what any politician says at face value, then you're nuts.
jhales 13y ago
I think he is quoting the experts in the field...

acqq 13y ago

Author: because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. Note how unmathematical this approach is. The whole premse of the article and the content are: "There are different numbers, some strange qualifiers in front of them which changed but which I'll ignore, but because I compare just the numbers, they are smaller than before so we can happily continue with global warming." The facts are different. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-clim... To hold the temperature increase to about 1.5 degrees, the globe would need to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then have negative emissions. The author's article ignores the timeframes too, like it doesn't matter at all.

gavanwoolery 13y ago

I'm not really a scientist, so I can't take any sides here, but I would like to point out a few things (make your own rational judgments). I do know the true principles of science, if little about its practice. Real science is unbiased. Everyone in these threads seems to get so heated that their "side" is right (I've been guilty of it as well, its an easy trap to fall into). Well, real science does not care about sides, it cares about boiling down a system of variables into a probable hypothesis. Even the most likely hypotheses have been shattered - I'm not saying that is the case, but sometimes climatology feels more like faith than science. Real science aims to prove its results wrong, not to prove them right. Climatology/meteorology/etc are actually very difficult types of science because you cannot simple put the earth in a confined test area where you can tweak the variables on a small level. Yes, we all know that increase in CO2 = increase in greenhouse effect, that is child's science and not a real question. The real question is how much impact do human beings really have on the atmosphere, and to what degree should we change our behavior (if at all) based on that? There are so many variables that are difficult to predict (or even determine in realtime) - the sun's energy output, how much CO2 gets processed by trees, how much CO2 gets trapped in the upper atmosphere (it happens, despite it being heavier than other types of atmosphere), underwater volcanic activity, and so forth. That, and try doing a thermodynamic simulation at earth's scale - the best we can do is very crudely rough it. That said, there is no reason we should trash our environment just because we don't know what is going on - there are a million reasons to gravitate towards clean energy (in particular, sustainable energy). All I can say is, if you are a real scientist, constantly question your own beliefs, don't fight for them.

spinlock 13y ago

I just wanted to point out that the author is a politician and not a scientist. Also, the globe has warmed by 6-8 degrees F since the last ice age. The temperature difference that the author considers "beneficial" is the difference between Manhattan being a vibrant city and being buried under a mile of ice.

valar_m 13y ago
You are mistaken. He is, in actual fact, a scientist. Ridley has a DPhil degree in zoology from Oxford, and he's a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
- spinlock 13y ago
  I stand corrected. The author is a politician and a terrible scientist.

brohoolio 13y ago

Anyone else think it's weird how when you click on the WSJ link it drops you three links deep into WSJ? I imagine most folks use new tabs, but this was kind of weird trying to back button out of the WSJ site.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

Here is my thought on climate change, and something each party overlooks while paying scientists to do research that supports their point. Lets just pretend that hypothetically, we are 100% sure global warming is not caused by human-manufactured pollution. With that being the case, what do we do? Take off pollution controls? Turn every city into a place where you need to wear a mask to breathe? If you've ever been to Shanghai or even Los Angeles it is pretty obvious there are problems with pollution beyond damaging the ozone. Personally, I think that millions of people being able to actually breathe is more important than chemical company x stock price going up because they didn't have to "waste" money on proper disposal and soot filters... The fact that we get bogged down in a discussion of whether the ozone is being damaged and overlook whether our lungs are being damaged just blows my mind.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
> The fact that we get bogged down in a discussion of whether the ozone is being damaged and overlook whether our lungs are being damaged just blows my mind. Not to diminish your point, which I completely agree with, but the current discussion about climate change is not related to the ozone layer, but is primarily about greenhouse gasses and associated global warming. The former was down to pervasive use of CFCs, which have now mostly been regulated away; the latter is down to (in particular) carbon emissions.
seandhi 13y ago
CO2 does not damage the Ozone layer. CO2 is not soot. CO2 does not damage our lungs. Even though it has recently been added to the EPA's list of pollutants (because of the climate change debate), CO2 is not even what people would readily identify as "pollution" - like chemicals that irritate eyes, lungs or sinuses. The debate is how much - if any - negative impact is being done to our climate by a chemical that is an inevitable byproduct of the combustion of carbon-based fuels (which, outside of nuclear and hydro, offer the cheapest source of energy), and is combatting the risk of negative impact worth the economic impact to our economy. I am not making a statement about climate change. I am only saying, respectfully, that you deeply misunderstand the debate.
smsm42 13y ago

ris 13y ago

I invite people to read a bit of background information on Matt Ridley before they read this article.

valar_m 13y ago
Why? Did the author make an argument based on a claim of subject matter expertise?

znowi 13y ago

Climate Change (rebranded Global Warming) is such a heated and controversial topic, including in academia, that turns decent people into crazed maniacs (think of Apple or sport team fans). I suggest to stay away from it until something conclusive emerges from the study.