Global Warming Delusions • Hacker News Board

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#31

Post by webwright » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:57 PM UTC

conflux0 wrote: post #10

dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

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.

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.

I think he could've said that better. IMO,the point he was trying to make with the Erik the Red stuff is that climate change tends top open doors as much as it closes them. The megafauna that went extinct made room for other species. Warming can be disastrous for some latitudes and a boon for others. He wasn't saying that warming is a wonderful thing-- he was saying that it's more complex than that, and pointing out one example.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#32

Post by Rod » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:58 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #23

robotrout wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a troll? Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable? The author expressed some very clear ideas. Are you trying to suppress them?

"Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable?" Yes, I do. What is it that makes an article espousing a middle-of-the-road position on global warming reasonable, but an article that espouses taking immediate action to enact a carbon cap unreasonable? Or are we expected to believe that the best course of action is the one that seems reasonable, whatever that means.

We're talking about a very complex problem here, and jumping to conclusions based on unreliable computer simulations and mass hysteria promoted by the media is, indeed, unreasonable.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#33

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:12 PM UTC

david927 wrote: post #20

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.

Oh, I'm sure it's billions of people! I mean, why not, right? If you're going to pull numbers out of the air, it seems reasonable that they be large ones! I bet you're right and 1/3rd of the population of the earth will be displaced. (Or were there more billions than just 2 in your scenario?)

You should know that even the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly. It would happen over a period of many, many, many, many years. The city would simply vacate what it had to, as it had to, and add levies where it made economic sense to do so. It won't be a tidal wave that just appears on the horizon.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#34

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:19 PM UTC

Rod wrote: post #32

Alex3917 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable?" Yes, I do. What is it that makes an article espousing a middle-of-the-road position on global warming reasonable, but an article that espouses taking immediate action to enact a carbon cap unreasonable? Or are we expected to believe that the best course of action is the one that seems reasonable, whatever that means.

We're talking about a very complex problem here, and jumping to conclusions based on unreliable computer simulations and mass hysteria promoted by the media is, indeed, unreasonable.

The comment I was replying to didn't claim the article was reasonable because it was thoughtful and rational, it claimed the article was reasonable because it was middle-of-the-road.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#35

Post by halo » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:27 PM UTC

conflux0 wrote: post #10

dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

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.

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.

I believe the argument is supposed to counter the prevalent viewpoint that global warming is automatically a bad thing that will cause huge catastrophes without critically examining these claims. This doesn't automatically follow, and that it even may actually have some unexpected positive impacts. It's not a simplistic case of climate change solely being 'bad'.

In my view, the global warming "debate" ultimately comes down to three core questions:

1. How large is the effect of global warming?

2. What effect will this have on the planet and its inhabitants?

3. What is the correct, proportional, response?

As you get further down the question becomes broader, more complex and more difficult to answer as it's reliant on the answers to the ones above.

One extreme is that the effect will be huge, it will have a devastating effect and threaten the human race, and so the proportional response is to focus and invest an almost infinite amount of resource on global warming as a threat. The other extreme is that the effect is marginal, it will do little to change the planet, therefore few-to-no resources should be dedicated to it.

But there's actually a huge, largely forgotten, middle ground. What if the effect is quite large, but the effect is largely changing worldwide weather cycles, so the best investment is to attempt to limit against further climate change and divert resources towards the humanitarian aspect and industrial projects to mitigate the problems instead, while watching and re-evaluating how these things progress to get a better picture of the true scale of the problem? This seems the pragmatic 'solution' that the real word politicians are trying to take, but you don't hear much about it compared to the more extreme viewpoints, not least because it doesn't make for as good headlines as 'the destruction of the world'.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#36

Post by radu_floricica » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:33 PM UTC

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

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#37

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:36 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #30

Alex3917 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the most intellectually dishonest argument you can imagine is to claim something is maximally intellectually dishonest when you know full well it is not, because you are being dishonest about the very nature of intellectual dishonesty.

If you reread the article from the beginning, you will see that it is intellectually dishonest. Here is the thesis:

"Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary."

As you go through each of his paragraphs, do you really feel like he has taken the best conceptual arguments for the seriousness of the consequences of global warming and shown that the evidence for these scenarios is thin? He hasn't. Rather, his thesis is supported with straw men about the particulars of mockingbirds and vikings.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#38

Post by pradocchia » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:37 PM UTC

huherto wrote: post #19

vinutheraj wrote: post #8

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

ten days is hardly a sample.

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.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#39

Post by baguasquirrel » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:42 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #29

david927 wrote: post #20

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.

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 outri…

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.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#40

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 6:45 PM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #28

Alex3917 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.