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

A stunning year in climate science

climateprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#31

Post by ErrantX »

getonit wrote: post #30
ErrantX wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.

Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll al…

Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem.

Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.

When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes.

In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :)

What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#32

Post by mithaler »

The response in the comments here is perplexing to me.

The article is presenting well-cited scientific studies, with summaries and disclaimers where statistical issues have been correctly raised. Together, the article's point is that the "climategate" emails were a distraction that the media followed instead of all of the numerous studies coming out in the same year on the subject.

With that in mind, yes, it may be political advocacy, but no one here has raised any real reason why the research behind them shouldn't be taken seriously. If someone posted a list of articles coming out at the same time that rebutted their findings, I might think differently, but as it is I can't help thinking from observing the response here that the article's point may be truer than even its writers imagined. There's real science here! Discussion about the discussion is a distraction from it. If you think we shouldn't be discussing climate change, show me why you think the research is bogus instead of just telling me "political issues don't belong on HN". It's political because there's a lot of money at stake, not because the science is controversial; and please, if you think I'm wrong about that, show me why. I really, really, really want to be. Other scientific articles are fine on HN, so why not this?

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#33

Post by getonit »

ErrantX wrote: post #31
getonit wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll al…

Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identi…

To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable.

> Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.

We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.

> In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action

How is your martian cave? ;)

> ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves.

I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#34

Post by ErrantX »

getonit wrote: post #33
ErrantX wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identi…

To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends…

They are not comparable.

Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger)

If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.

Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning.

This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped?

Answer: It hasn't.

I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever

Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;)

But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.

The only option open to us is spreading awareness,

On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things.

The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating).

We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.

So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#35

Post by gjm11 »

ErrantX wrote: post #25
gjm11 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is indeed nothing wrong with the science, then there is a "clear and present danger" of a "catastrophe". In which case, what's wrong with saying so? (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a sensible thing to do if the theatre actually is on fire . Though in that particular case there might be safer ways to begin.)

That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a meaningful discussion without yelling words like that :) There is this theory, I fear, that it tries to imply the gravity of the situation... all of which is pointless. Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated a…

I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so.

If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is.

What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#37

Post by guelo »

KevinMS wrote: post #23
guelo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using a straight Ad Hominem, or as pg calls it a DH1.

Ad Hominem by association you mean? I'm not "attacking" the website because of its associations, just pointing out its associations are very very partisan and therefore the site probably shouldn't be posted here.

You tried to discredit the argument on the basis of irrelevant issues with the author, that is an Ad Hominem.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#38

Post by getonit »

ErrantX wrote: post #34
getonit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable. > Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends…

They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstandi…

> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me

I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production.

> This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't.

The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?

> Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.

I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.

> However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace

Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;)

> We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.

I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#39

Post by ErrantX »

getonit wrote: post #38
ErrantX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not comparable. Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger) If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help. Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstandi…

> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production. > This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20…

> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here.

There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime.

>The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?

It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two!

> Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.

Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill.

You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;)

> and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all

This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years.

Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas.

We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#40

Post by getonit »

ErrantX wrote: post #39
getonit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production. > This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't. The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20…

> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly hi…

> This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years.

This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"?

The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system.

And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.

Post reply on HN