6 ms·

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is jus

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much. I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line. I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.

TriinT 17y ago
"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit. Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.
- ramidarigaz 17y ago
  The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
    - mighty 17y ago
      Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.
      - TriinT 17y ago
        English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?
        lanaer 17y ago
        If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary! “Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all. “climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period. “Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both). Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit." Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information. The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    "Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information." Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1. No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature. Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      "Temperature of what???" I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know). "However, there are an infinite number of points" Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out. "Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature." As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit. (Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?). "Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too." Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done? It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.
Retric 17y ago
seem to not want to debate the topic much Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left? At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old. PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?
  - khafra 17y ago
    Your immediate death isn't on the line. WHO says that people are already dying as a result of climate change: http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/inde...
    - plaes 17y ago
      People have always died in the climate (weather) related accidents... It is just media that has made all these events "accessible". When bad things happen, people want to know more... And this in turn means more $$$ (or €€€) for the media companies.
  - Retric 17y ago
    You can also slow boil a lobster without causing them to react. The trick is to react soon enough that the change is minor without over reacting and that's hard. I would propose a ~1% carbon fuel tax which funds wind farms which are then sold on the open market. You end up with a huge change at a small cost. Option 2, create an semi independent government agency like the post office which takes 1 billion and builds wind / solar / hydro power plants. Use the "profit" of electricity sold to build more power plants and let exponential growth take off. This depends on the expected rate of return and could be accelerated with some debt financing. In 20 years we may find it was pointless but we will have built infrastructure which is useful. Compared to a 2,980 billion dollar annual federal budget you can get a lot done with a change that's hard for most people to notice.
nollidge 17y ago
If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line. Sure, if you're just arguing about science. Once words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" are thrown about, however, we're not talking about the science anymore.
gort 17y ago
"I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much." Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creationism seriously, for instance. ETA: Robin Hanson once wrote about this effect: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.h...
- mistermann 17y ago
  So, the argument against the sky is falling is not "reasonable"? I think you just proved his point.
Tichy 17y ago
Maybe because you grow tired of silly arguments being repeated over and over again. I don't know much about climate science, but for example I think I know enough about evolution theory to be able to debunk the arguments of the creationists. Yet creationists won't give in - clearly reasoning is useless with them after a point. After a while I even suspect that the "opposing side" might have hired some people just to be obnoxious and bind the resources of "my side". For example I felt it was sad when all new books by evolution researchers stared to be 50% arguing against the same old tired creationist arguments. I felt the energy would have been better spent advancing the science.

TriinT 17y ago

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit. Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.

ramidarigaz 17y ago
The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.
- TriinT 17y ago
  The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
  - mighty 17y ago
    Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?
      - lanaer 17y ago
        If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary! “Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all. “climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period. “Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both). Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.
Tichy 17y ago
"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit." Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information. The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information." Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1. No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature. Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "Temperature of what???" I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know). "However, there are an infinite number of points" Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out. "Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature." As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit. (Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?). "Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too." Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done? It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.

Retric 17y ago

seem to not want to debate the topic much Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left? At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old. PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?
- khafra 17y ago
  Your immediate death isn't on the line. WHO says that people are already dying as a result of climate change: http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/inde...
  - plaes 17y ago
    People have always died in the climate (weather) related accidents... It is just media that has made all these events "accessible". When bad things happen, people want to know more... And this in turn means more $$$ (or €€€) for the media companies.
- Retric 17y ago
  You can also slow boil a lobster without causing them to react. The trick is to react soon enough that the change is minor without over reacting and that's hard. I would propose a ~1% carbon fuel tax which funds wind farms which are then sold on the open market. You end up with a huge change at a small cost. Option 2, create an semi independent government agency like the post office which takes 1 billion and builds wind / solar / hydro power plants. Use the "profit" of electricity sold to build more power plants and let exponential growth take off. This depends on the expected rate of return and could be accelerated with some debt financing. In 20 years we may find it was pointless but we will have built infrastructure which is useful. Compared to a 2,980 billion dollar annual federal budget you can get a lot done with a change that's hard for most people to notice.

nollidge 17y ago

If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line. Sure, if you're just arguing about science. Once words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" are thrown about, however, we're not talking about the science anymore.

gort 17y ago

"I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much." Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creationism seriously, for instance. ETA: Robin Hanson once wrote about this effect: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.h...

mistermann 17y ago
So, the argument against the sky is falling is not "reasonable"? I think you just proved his point.

Tichy 17y ago

Maybe because you grow tired of silly arguments being repeated over and over again. I don't know much about climate science, but for example I think I know enough about evolution theory to be able to debunk the arguments of the creationists. Yet creationists won't give in - clearly reasoning is useless with them after a point. After a while I even suspect that the "opposing side" might have hired some people just to be obnoxious and bind the resources of "my side". For example I felt it was sad when all new books by evolution researchers stared to be 50% arguing against the same old tired creationist arguments. I felt the energy would have been better spent advancing the science.