nm
Meh, the argument is based on science; reaching for morality in this case is like reaching for faith, something that also a lot of the proponents of change are accused of using when in reality the opponents are the ones using it to deny the facts and most likely effects to come. (BTW, no, I do not agree much with Greenpeace)
(Science writer Peter Hadfield takes on pusher of fake news Louder with [del]Chowder head[/del] Crowder)
That’s it? Where is the patented** GIGO** avalanche of text? Got a hot Saturday night planned, do you?
Had to compensate for a very long one in the* What do we do to fight fake news?* thread.
:D:)
I think you’re missing part of my point. If the green organizations tackled air pollution, I think they’d be more successful. Air pollution provokes more fear and outrage than climate change, so it’s easier to get people to change their behavior. Reducing car emissions would reduce air pollution and climate change, even if the person who is reducing their emissions does not believe in climate change.
I would rather have the green movement tackle air pollution (which I think would be more successful) which has the positive side effect of tackling climate change too… than endlessly try to convince people that climate change is real as their main strategy. The first strategy would tackle climate change too.
The new EPA rules (that are bound to be eliminated under a Trump administration) do make that point also. So let me tell you here: You are indeed using an argument seen before in many denier sites.
As Peter Hadfield said once: sure, there are people that claim to be environmentalists that don’t know shit from Shinola, but it is also bad to ignore that they are indeed continuing to also complain about “good” old fashion pollution. It is also not good to ignore that many of the extremists are not being taken seriously by many in power, even Obama has ignored them and continued to subsidize and support new nuclear power projects.
Not as much, however. I hear far more about climate change than air pollution.
I just did a quick (very non-scientific) check on Google News, just to see how many articles mentioned air pollution and how many mentioned climate change. 1.58 million articles mentioning air pollution vs 16.2 million articles mentioning climate change. I’m thinking one is much more visible than the other.
Not really. Nobody’s claiming that we need to have as many humans as we do now, or that human life would be worse overall if there were significantly fewer humans than there are now.
What we do say, though, is that humans’ quality of life would be significantly decreased if we were to undergo “sharp population decline as a consequence of resource loss, extreme weather, conflicts over dwindling resources, etc.”
[QUOTE=septimus]
Yes, humans would be demoralized if their numbers were so small that they were on the verge of extinction, but a billion humans would be enough, no?
[/quote]
Sure. But, quite understandably, most humans would rather not get from here to there via the path of mass starvations, devastating epidemics and natural disasters, and horrific wars over dwindling resources.
[QUOTE=septimus]
TL;DR: The meme that if a billion-human population is good then nine billion is nine times better is nonsense. Just say No.
[/QUOTE]
You’re completely missing the point. As I said, the issue is not whether we need to have nine billion humans on the planet: most people would be quite happy to agree that we don’t. The issue is how we get from nine billion humans to a significantly smaller number without causing horrendous suffering to most of the humans in existence.
I think you are falling for the same argument creationists do about evolution: because evolution is not mentioned by name in many new papers or articles it follows (to them) that most biologists do not believe in evolution.
It also helps to remember that a lot of climate change deniers do use the argument that CO2 increase is “not pollution” “as many environmentalists and climate scientists are telling us”.
Environmentalists do not forget about the pollution part of it, many are not forgetting that.
The point here is that even the supporters of doing nothing do know about the point made by scientists and environmentalists that CO2 is an air pollutant.
Contraception causes horrendous suffering?
“Jim Hansen: Hell Will Break Loose - Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms”
What’s the worst single thing that could happen?
That’s like asking, “What happens if you just knock over ONE domino?”
This seems like a silly response. If it isn’t averted, presumable at some point we will have to start dealing with the impacts of climate change and it’s fair to ask what are our priorities, how can we prepare, how much will it cost, etc.
For example, I was surprised to learn that so far there really hasn’t been much impact on hurricane intensity and frequency. I assumed it would be one of the most obvious changes but it just hasn’t panned out yet.
The wide variety of nebulous answers in this thread is part of why climate change denial gets more play than it probably deserves. Making arguments for spending more to avoid climate change is easier if we could point to some real, concrete numbers about what will happen and how much it will cost.
There’s a lot of information out there on the potential costs. But of course these estimates are made by the cabal of evil scientists so I really doubt you could get the average climate change denier to pay them much heed.
As I sometimes joke on Facebook, I’m now working obliquely in the GMO industry (supporting plant physiologists model plant growth using artificial intelligence in case anybody is wondering), how come I didn’t get my bribe … funding … from Monsanto yet? But even though I joke about it, I’ve had friends unfriend me from Facebook because I’m now part of the cabal of evil scientists. How do I combat that viewpoint? It can’t be with facts because we live in a “post-truth” world.
No, it’s quite a reasonable response, actually, because the sort of interrelationship of complex factors expressed by that analogy is inherent in the nature of climate. It’s certainly reasonable to ask about priorities, costs, etc. as you suggest, but that’s not what the OP asked.
I’m surprised that you learned that, since it isn’t true. There is certainly an unsurprising relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity everything else being equal, but things are not equal in different geographic regions, and the same factors that drive higher SSTs can also drive countervailing influences to hurricane formation, so that you may end up with fewer hurricanes but more intense ones, and these patterns may be different in different geographies, so the balance of relationships to hurricane strength and frequency is quite complex. But the relationship is clearer to extreme weather events in general: we are already seeing a shift to greater frequencies of extreme heat, extreme cold, precipitation changes causing droughts and floods, and worse storm surges due to stronger storms and higher sea levels.
Well, if you want something particularly detailed and specific you can refer to the three IPCC working group reports, of which WG1 covers the physical science of climate change, WG2 covers impacts, adaptations, and vulnerabilities, and WG2 provides an assessment of mitigation strategies and cost analyses, which ought to go a long way to answering your questions. Similar reports have been issued by numerous other organizations including the US military and global insurance associations.
Correction on obvious typo: the IPCC assessment on mitigation should read WG3, not WG2.
Cite? I read this piece in the WSJ the other day by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. that said:
My cite was given with my post. Kerry Emanuel is not just a respected climate scientist but is arguably the world’s foremost expert on hurricanes. The Power Dissipation Index I cited is a metric he invented specifically for tracking hurricane intensities.
Whereas Roger Pielke Jr. is a denialist asshat with no climate research credentials, unlike his father who is also a borderline denialist asshat but at least sometimes publishes in the field. Your first clue should have been that Junior’s diatribe was published in the WSJ. This is what Joe Romm said about Pielke Jr:
Roger Pielke, Jr. is the single most disputed and debunked person in the entire realm of people who publish regularly on disasters and climate change. He trashes the reputation of any scientist who even suggests that there is the tiniest link whatsoever between climate change and extreme weather even though he himself has stated such a link exists …
https://thinkprogress.org/foreign-policys-guide-to-climate-skeptics-includes-roger-pielke-jr-d702d05527df#.g75rtb4eh
The connection between extreme weather and climate change is not new – there’s tons of research on it, and the IPCC even produced a special report on the subject that supplements the regular assessment reports.
I don’t believe Thinkprogress anymore than you believe Roger Pielke Jr, and your original link was to excerpts of an interview, which is hardly what I’d call “scholarly”, but I do thank you for the IPCC special report link. I’ll read it, or at least the 20-page “summary for policymakers” and see if it catches my interest enough to dive into the full 600-page report
Let’s take this a point at a time:
greater frequencies of extreme heat, extreme cold
I’m not sure exactly how to score you on this one. Half right? A quarter right? I read things like “overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights” and “medium confidence”, and it seems like you’re overselling the evidence by quite a bit.
precipitation changes causing droughts and floods
Sounds like the evidence of more floods is weak, at best, and the droughts are a bit of a mixed bag (more intense and longer in places, less intense and shorter in other places). What do you say, shall we call it one-quarter right on this one too?
worse storm surges due to stronger storms and higher sea levels
That doesn’t sound like “we are already seeing … stronger storms” to me. Does it sound that way to you?
Phew! Finally! Your claim and the IPCC at least seem to agree on something. We’ll give you a half a point for the bit about “higher sea levels”
Overall, I rate your claim mostly false with a final score of 1/3.