Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 224 posts

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#181

Post by throwaway894345 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #69
throwaway894345 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is why people who argue against climate change stand to gain. I suspect it is something like psychological security (“I’ve only known a history of rapid progress and I’m not emotionally prepared to confront the possibility that life will be worse for my children and grandchildren, nor that I was complicit”). At least that’s the average joe climate denier. For the very wealthy it’s simple gre…

> For the very wealthy it’s simple greed. It's greed for basically anyone above the poverty line. There's functionally no difference for wanting a better life for you and your children and to increase your wealth for what is, in the end, the same goal. Unnecessarily driving an SUV, eating far too much meat and running the lines supplying peoples with those meat is morally not that different.

> Unnecessarily driving an SUV, eating far too much meat and running the lines supplying peoples with those meat is morally not that different.

At the very least it's a difference in degree. If we use wealth as a proxy for power then a given billionaire has at least the same political power as 10K median Americans. And of course the median American has expenses which constitute a much larger share of his income than that of our hypothetical billionaire, and they need to work such that they can't devote their full time and energy to climate problems while our billionaire can live a lavish lifestyle on capital alone.

Beyond that, I find it particularly ludicrous that there's no difference between being an end consumer and literally being at the helm of the supply chain. A consumer has virtually no ability to control the emissions involved in the supply chain while obviously the supply chain helmsmen very much do have that ability, and the creation, refinement, and transport of those goods is overwhelmingly the cause of those emissions in the first place. You might argue that consumers can choose low emissions products but we don't even have the ability to assess which products are "low emissions". And this isn't even touching the "advertising/promoting a carbon-intensive lifestyle" or lobbying to maintain a system that incentivizes pollution.

So while "not that different" is relative, I can't imagine anything more different than our hypothetical billionaire and median American. The idea that eating a cheese burger is morally equivalent to investing in and lobbying for the fossil fuel industry is nothing but repugnant ideology.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#182

Post by read_if_gay_ »

BobbyJo wrote: post #174
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Both are just equating correlation with causation. Of course we know drunk driving increases deaths, but if that wasn’t obvious then you couldn’t say either of these statemens.

> Of course we know drunk driving increases deaths, but if that wasn’t obvious then you couldn’t say either of these statements. And we know that climate change causes more drastic heat waves. If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.

Climate change produces heat waves by definition. If we're going to take a heat wave as hard proof for climate change, then climate change is a valid theory by definition, and that's not exactly scientific.

> If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.

Why so snarky?

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#183

Post by hellothere1337 »

Everybody is thinking about how tech will save us again from this conundrum. About how we will science the shit out of this. But of course nobody wants to talk about how we have added 1 billion people in a decade. People that will want living standards similar or better than ours and who will fight to get them. Will you science the shit out of them as well? Maybe with some drone based genocide?

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#184

Post by syops »

aww_dang wrote: post #178
syops wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected i…

>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never…

It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#185

Post by throwaway894345 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #88
throwaway894345 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is why people who argue against climate change stand to gain. I suspect it is something like psychological security (“I’ve only known a history of rapid progress and I’m not emotionally prepared to confront the possibility that life will be worse for my children and grandchildren, nor that I was complicit”). At least that’s the average joe climate denier. For the very wealthy it’s simple gre…

The wealthy will likely gain by climate change, already there is a wall of money looking to benefit from sustainable and transition finance. Not so well off people might - correctly - see that they will be disproportionately hit. So for them to push against policies (perceived or in reality) making them poorer is not totally insane.

> The wealthy will likely gain by climate change, already there is a wall of money looking to benefit from sustainable and transition finance.

I can't tell what point you're making. Do you mean "the wealthy will likely gain by combatting climate change"? If so, no doubt some will benefit from it, but they won't benefit as much (in the short term) as they would if they continued to externalize costs into the environment.

> Not so well off people might - correctly - see that they will be disproportionately hit.

I don't buy this at all. There's no fundamental reason that carbon policies would disproportionately impact the lower and middle classes and indeed many of the policy proposals are expressly designed to minimize or negate the burden imposed on those classes. The only reason policies tend to increase the burden on those classes is because the upper classes lobby accordingly.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#186

Post by NiceWayToDoIT »

NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #29

It is interesting tone of this article, even now scientist are struggling to convince wide public and policy makers, that global warming is real. Outcry of desperation. I see in that parallel with Covid pandemic: - "not it is not real" - "it is just a flu like any other" - "all things will be ok" - "oh sh* it is real" - "f** it is real" - "we are screwed run for your lives" - "..." - "no we have not said it is not re…

Last two hours I am looking how points on this post going up and down, and only think I can think is - how divided people are about something this is so crucial for their survival.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#187

Post by irthomasthomas »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #173
irthomasthomas wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-sugg... "How did the Romans manage to grow grapes in northern England when most climate studies suggest the weather was much cooler then? We may now have an answer: it wasn’t that cold at all." Edit: oops I did mixup the late Roman and Medieval warm periods. Anyway both the RWP around 2000 years ago and the MWP 1000 years ago are what geologists call interglacia…

I wasn't asking regarding the existence of the period. The Roman Warming period was ~250 BC to ~400 AD - much closer to 2,000 years ago than 1,000. It wasn't anywhere relevant. You're also ignoring that the medieval warming period WAS exactly 1,000 years ago and we're currently beating those temperatures. Edit to match your edit: Neither the MWP nor the RWP were global phenomenas - they were hotspots at different tim…

You are claiming that the last two warm periods where not global? So you deny the existence of the Minoan, Roman, and the Medieval interglacials? I think geologists would disagree.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#188

Post by pif »

realityking wrote: post #159
pif wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying this for several years now: global warming is here to stay. Let's stop wasting time talking about giving up comfort in the hope that maybe the whole world will follow and the 2° will maybe become 1.5°. Stop it! Climate is changing: it's a fact, let's stop whining, let's accept it and especially let's face it. The question must not be: "what can we all do do mitigate the problem?" The question must be…

> The question must be: "what can I do to enjoy life as much as possible within the current framework and without stealing from my neighbor?" And what about the next generation(s)? Climate change might have disastrous consequences in my life time (I’m early 30s) but it’ll pale in comparison to what coming generations have to face. Whatever we can do today to give them a leg up is valuable.

> Whatever we can do

You need too large a we to able to do anything at a global scale. Much better to start facing it: install AC, move to fresher countries, accept that a big change is already happening and do whatever you can to cope with it.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#189

Post by aww_dang »

syops wrote: post #184
aww_dang wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never…

It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.

You hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored.

IMHO, if we are to examine the moral question we need to ask not just about the premises of the doomsayers, but the potential outcomes of the favored solutions. Even where I disagree with their premises, I can appreciate the questions and arguments around the mechanisms for warming. However, the proposed solutions are plainly harmful.

Where empirical observations required for climate science, apriori knowledge about human nature, reason and logic can be applied to their carbon credit central banking schemes. We know humans are flawed and greedy. We know the world is a complex place. Allowing the further privilege of centrally planning the world's energy consumption invites not just moral hazard, but catastrophic tyranny.

Therefore, if you disagree about the specifics of AGW, fine. That is a separate issue. Consider the moral hazards of the doomsayer's proposals.

Finally, avoid the trap of false alternatives. There are options besides inaction or adopting the warmist's proposals. Reforestation, forestry management and carbon storage through use of wood products is a viable alternative. Ask why this profitable solution is not given precedence over violent, government mandates.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#190

Post by iso1631 »

syops wrote: post #75
iso1631 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been cranking up my AC What is your power source?

I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?

The irony of as we have more hot days, more AC is used, using more kWh, generating more CO2, leading to more hot days.

There's also the OPs complaint that he has no agency in this - but he chooses to have AC. I wonder how many tons of CO2 are emitted so people in offices can wear suits and jackets and work through the day, rather than shorts and t-shirts and siesta in the cool.

Post reply on HN