Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThomPete | Hacker News Reader

If someone want to convince me that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change are we currently not able to deal with and won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now.

Climate change will happen whether we emit CO2 or not and we always have to find ways to co-exist with that fact.

But the idea that climate change is catastrophic to the extent a sudden impact from an astroid is just not convincing and it's certainly not scientific no matter how many scientist are behind that view.

"threat to humanity" is a big concept and it's disheartening to see it being thrown around with regards to climate so easily.

My position on this is that we start taking care of our close environments rather than worrying about climate change as that's not something we can really do anything about (and no solar and wind will not solve our problems)

The current debate about climate change is politics masquaraded as science.

Until we accept this we can't have a constructive debate.

View on HN

I don't think people are saying it's like being hit by an astroid.

It's gradual, like a frog being slowly boiled alive.

There is lot of science in here: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-i...

Other climate scientists (like P. Wadhams) think that report is too conservative.

The way I understood it is (some major points):

- The arctic ice is melting, which will reduce how much sunlight is reflected back into space (albedo effect).

- melting permafrost releases methane - a very potent greenhouse gas, which can accelerate global warming.

- More droughts can cause crop failures and eventually can cause social instability, starvation, malnutrition and wars for resources.

This is a good summary of the IPCC report - it says we have around 12 years to avert major climate catastrophe:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w...

Also look into what Dr James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) says.

I think the scientific community is in consensus that climate change can become an existential threat if we don't act now.

I don't understand why you don't think that's the case, even though there is so much scientific evidence out there. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

Edit: typos and clarity

Everything you point to is speculations they are not scientifically demonstrated. This is the main problem here.

"It can lead to", "it might", "potentially" etc. that's not actually science.

Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated. And just because you can show something in a lab you can't necessarily show that in larger scale systems.

I am well aware of the claims about the 12 years and all that but I challenge anyone to show where it's demonstrated and I would invite anyone to dig into the material themselves.

What you will quickly realize is that the actual science is a very small fraction of all the things you read about. The climate is changing yes. Besides that, the actual science starts to turn into more speculative territory. And then there are the issues with curve fitting etc. So much fud on both sides.

IPCC does not actually do any science themselves, they don't even check the data they just do meta-studies and much of that is based on best guesses. They are an organization who only exist because there is a fear of climate change. That's not science that's politics. Let the scientists do science rather than this absurd political circus which gets in the way.

There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes and that should be a big red flag to anyone who claims to be a critical thinker.

Furthermore, none of the things you claim are things we won't be able to deal with or can't already. The frog metaphor would work fine if we didn't become better and better at dealing with the challenges nature puts towards us but that's not how things work.

Nature doesn't give us a safe environment we don't make unsafe. It gives us a hostile and unsafe environment we then make safe and will continue to affect.

There is no consensus that climate change can become an existential threat in anything than a speculative sense and it doesn't matter. A consensus is not proof nor is it science. Only demonstration is science.

I'm aware IPCC doesn't do science themselves and it is a study of studies like you said.

But meta studies are a gold standard (especially for complex systems) as they average out the errors.

Those studies are from scientists who do science, so I don't quite follow your comment.

If I understand your comment correctly ("test in a large scale system"), in order to be 100% sure what would happen if the global temperature rises above 1.5C we would somehow have to replicate planet Earth with all its complex systems and speed up time to see what will actually happen?

What about the models that scientists create? Are you saying that's not real science?

Keep in mind that Earth climate models were used to successfully predict Martian weather, so I think we can trust those models that warn us of a climate threat if we don't cut our CO2 emissions.

Are you basically saying there is nothing to worry about, because nothing has been proven yet?

Take something like curve fitting. That's not done based on some rigid methodology it's based on best guesses by the individuals. And because you are dealing with something as politicized as climate change that basically means that the validity of these metastudies is at least questionable.

Keep in mind without climate change fear there is no need for climate change scientist. The climate is always changing but the scientists can easily cover that.

You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry.

The climate is changing but lets' stop pretending the hockey stick is science. It's not it's an interpretation of data a very very very different thing.

On top of that. The claim that we only have 12 years left to do something about things is NOT science its speculation based on interpretation of the available data.

Of course, the models aren't science. If it was science we wouldn't have different outcomes based on different inputs. We wouldn't be talking about a spectrum from almost nothing to +6 degrees.

What exactly did they predict though with regards to the martian weather? It's is orders of magnitudes simpler than ours so that's not really an argument and no you can't trust the models cause they are based on very different things.

What I am saying is that neither you nor anyone else has shown scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with.

So I would love someone to be specific with showing something we don't know how to deal with and which would warrant some of the more extreme proposals we have heard such as ban fossile fuels and subsidies to sun and wind.

And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.

My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics.

That's why we get a range and not exact values, so don't take the 12 years literal - it's also an approximation.

There is much more explained on the NASA website

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

RE: You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry.

What's in it for the climate scientists, e.g. what's in it for James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) to not be truthful about this? What's in it for him if he can convince the world that global warming has negative consequences for our habitat? Maybe the outcome would be that we would make a more concerted effort to get off fossil fuels and maybe try to have a more sustainable lifestyle? I don't think that's a bad outcome.

There is a lot of profit for the oil industry to spread misinformation and for lobbying to keep the status quo. Exxonmobil's scientist already knew about climate change, but then Exxonmobil spread misinformation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

RE: And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.

Our local environment is connected to the global environment - you can't separate the two. Stuff gets into the stratosphere and then around the whole world or our plastic straws end up in a turtle's nose.

It's one big system.

They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out.

I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously.

Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it.

There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong.

What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too.

Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory.

I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.

Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from.

Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx

I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons.

But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about.

Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion.

So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ

Thanks.

My sources are science journals and talks by those climate scientists mentioned previously.

I watched the 1st and 3rd video.

The first one was good but it was a bit all over the place, I wish they had more time to discuss this in more detail.

The way I understood is that Prof Lindzen argues that there is no man made climate change that's an existential threat and the other scientist are alarmist and says they are heavily biased and suggested that there is even conspiracy, but wouldn't say who is behind this conspiracy. He even urged Trump to withdraw from the climate accord. What is wrong with investing more heavily in renewable tech? What about gradually decreasing oil subsidies and funneling those to clean tech.

For example what if those climate scientist are right, we only have one biosphere.

The 3rd with Epstein - he isn't a scientist and he didn't present any evidence either (maybe he does in this book). But I get his point, of course fossil fuels were and are useful and helped to build our civilization. But the counterpoint is that we need to get off it and ensure that we use the cleanest form of fossil fuels.

Even if it's confirmed at a later stage that there is no man made climate change that's a threat, the fossil fuel industry creates pollution that's not healthy for humans and other life on this planet. We have the know how, but not enough is being done to make the shift. Of course it's not realistic to suddenly ban the use of fossil fuels. But more needs to be done to invest in clean tech.

Again, what if those models and scientists are right that man made climate change is a threat. We don't really want to experiment with our only habitat.

LIke the moderator from the rubin report, since I'm not a scientist in these matters, I need to take what the majority of scientist are saying more seriously vs some fringe scientist who only say the others didn't prove anything therefore we can continue as usual.

Better be safe than sorry.

Anyway, thanks for posting those links - but I'm not convinced yet and I rather err on the cautious side and try to continue reducing my carbon footprint, even if Lindzen thinks it's just a symbolic gesture

PS: I didn't watch the 2nd video, only the first few minutes. This format looked a bit more promising, but the debate is from 2007 - that's over 10 years ago - new data and maybe new models have emerged since then to give us a better understanding of climate change. I parked this for now.

My sources are all sorts of things however as you said yourself if you are not a scientist you don't really have the ability to know what is true and what is false here and so it's much better to see these debates as they flush out the actual disagreements.

No new models have emerged that changes things in any fundamental way again. You are more than welcome to point to it if you think it exist but you won't find it because it's mostly speculation not science.

Epstein is not saying we shouldn't get of fossil fuels he is saying we shouldn't do it before we have a better alternative solar and wind is not that. They won't be delivering more than 2-3% even with heavy heavy investments and they are unreliable they are not clean. They are not solutions to getting of fossil fuel and that exactly the problem. So why on earht would any sany person support something that isn't going to solve the problem just because it's green if its not going to be able to deliver enough energy? That's a waste of taxpayer money which could be used for R&D into proper solutions. That's the problem. Even if we do everything that's in the paris agreement it's estimated that we will only be able to adjust the temperature with less than 1 degree. In what world is that a sane investment?

Better safe than sorry is not a useful argument. The majority of scientists are not saying what you think they are thats the point. They are saying all sorts of things which then get packaged into a catastrophist viewpoint through the media.

You are taking what the media says as truth not the scientists as they science do not make any such predictions what so ever it can't.

Even the person who is arguing against lindzen agrees that the idea of consensus is stupid it's not science.

Science is falsifiable the other thing is a mix of speculation and politics.

The real question you should be asking yourself is exactly what you are prepared to do to reduce carbon footprint. There is no solution out there that will get us off it or even reduce is drastically besides R&D no one is arguing against that.

So again what exactly are you worried about and how far are you prepared to go? You gonna go to war with china over coal plants? If not then it's purely gestures and you go into any government in the world and you will quickly realize that they don't really prioritize it as high as they say they do because they don't either know what exactly they should worry about and what to do about it.

I also try to have a wide variety of sources, hence why I asked you for your sources, since the oncce I found that argued against climate change being a threat were just weak opinions.

And you're right... I didn't play back my understanding correctly about Epstein. But all I'm saying is we could do more to accelerate and fund discovery of clean tech solutions. Oil for example gets so much more subsidies than renewable energy. We could adjust those levers, but it seems the political will isn't there.

A scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majority rule, so I don't think it's useless - scientific consensus is many different scientists from different backgrounds coming to a similar conclusion. This and meta-studies shouldn't be dismiised.

Why is 'better safe than sorry' not a useful argument? Maybe an apt analogy would be our health. Say for example a doctor says you're susceptible to a certain illness. To decrease the chances of getting that illness the doctor presents some things that have been shown to work in the past with other patients, but it hasn't been proven to work every time, because bodies are complex. I would certainly do those things to try to avoid that illness.

What I'm worried about is what if the consensus on man made climate change and its threat turn out to be true - in our lifetime sometime in this century. We don't really want to use our only habitat as a test lab to find out, because if it turns out the be true it will be too late.

That's why I think the climate models are not useless. Climate models are being used to predict crop yields for example. Yes, it's not 100% accurate but the confidence of a certain outcome is high. So those climate models that are being used to demonstrate global warming and its effect shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not verifiable.

What I'm doing is what some other people in this thread are doing, i.e. I don't consume animal products anymore, as it's not logical anymore to do and it's an ineffecient way to feed people. On top of that it's immoral, bad for the environment (cutting down forests and to have farmland, etc), bad for people working in that industry (e.g. would you want to kill and slaughter animals all day and breath in the air in a slaughterhouse?) and bad for your health (see dr neil barndard, dr greger, dr ellsworth etc). I use public transport, use my gadgets until they die or can't be repaired anymore, don't follow any fashion trends and buy higher quality clothes that lasts longer (i.e. not fast fashion).

Anyway, I think we've reached the end - usually it's better to debate these type of things face to face and this forum doesn't lend itself very well to long term debates - running out of space - almost reached the end of the right margin ;)

Thanks again for those links I'll checkout more stuff by Epstein and Lindzen and if you have any other sources or scientists who provide a counter argument then please feel free to share those.

The collapse of the entire food chain? Insect biomass is down 80% in the last 40 years. Ocean phytoplankton is down 40% since 1950. Both are attributed to climate change. These things are at the bottom of the land and sea food chains respectively. If the food chain collapses completely, we will all starve.

This is not a gradual change of the type we need to learn to adapt to. This is a sudden, full-blown, in-progress apocalypse of a scale only seen once before in Earth's history.

Care to point to the scientific demonstrated evidence that the food chain is collapsing?

We are much more people today when we were in the 50ies yet we are doing much better.

So once again besides all the speculation what can you prove?

I don't care about speculations i was asking about demonstrated evidence.

I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

How many people have to die for you to consider it a threat to humanity. Not trying to be dramatic, just understand that small changes in climate and crops have the potential to starve millions if not billions.

For humanity to be properly threatened the threat needs to make humanity stop existing. Starving/dying people are bad, but not unusual even in current day to day life. It might even ramp up, that's really bad. But that doesn't make it a threat to humanity as a whole.

I take the question as humanity as a whole, not just the existence of humanity. If something is capable of wiping out 50% of humanity, I consider that a threat. I understand what you're saying though.

Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?

50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.

Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die?

People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature.

Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions.

We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected.

So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either.

It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods.

This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.

I feel like I need to weigh in here: You're taking this a bit too far. I didn't mean to imply anywhere that nothing needs to be done about climate change. I think it is essential that we do, and demanding "evidence that billions will die" is to my mind perhaps being purposely deaf to the reality of the situation as it is and will be.

"Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above

ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to impossible standards and then complaining that they're not met.

I have no idea what they mean "If someone want to convince me...they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change...won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now." .. "There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes"

A shortage of what?! One is supposed to demonstrate the future somehow, or give a deductive proof, or something? What would count as evidence that events predicted by scientists will occur? I'm not sure. Nothing, it seems.

It seems any prediction or forecast about almost anything can equally be called 'certainly not scientific', 'politics masquaraded as science', 'speculations...not scientifically demonstrated' etc etc.

I guess the probability of asteroids hitting the earth is independent of the stuff happening here, of human plans and actions, so can't similarly be accused of being politics in disguise. But most issues on this planet - all the other ones I can think of - aren't of that kind.

One is supposed to at least entertain the idea that there is no consensus about "the sky is falling" claims we see in the media and pushed by politicians.

So no I am not holding anything to impossible standards I am simply saying that currently none of the consequences of climate change are things we can't deal with.

And yes predictions or forecast about almost anything can equally be called not scientific which would be a welcome change compared to the discussion we have today where bogus claims like "i believe in science" or "97% of scientists" agree are being used as ways to shut down any dissent from the catastrophist interpretation of the actual data.

I think you are missing the point here.

The question isn't whether we should do something but what we should do.

The catastrophist claims basically opens up for a lot of really really expensive and ultimately useless solutions.

As an example wind and solar which isn't even providing 1% of the worlds energy consumption yet touted as the great savior.

When "the sky is falling" claims are going mainstream that opens up for almost any extreme solution no matter the cost.

Of course we should do something about fossil fuels if nothing else for the pollution, but we already are and that's good enough compared to what the demonstrated consequences of Climate change is.

I'm not sure why you're so against any sort of action here, but I am sure that that attitude is part of the reason we should be worried.

Why are you assuming I want to force solar and wind? What if I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power? What if I don't have a solution. What if I'm just trying to point out that we're in trouble.

"It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods."

Can you explain this fully. What specifically are you planning we do? How will that correlate to the rise in global temperatures.

I know this is xkcd but I think it's pretty effective at conveying what we're up against: https://xkcd.com/1732/

I am not against any sort of action. I am just not for overinvesting in inferior products like solar and wind and claiming the sky is falling as if we are doomed if we don't go to some sort of extreme. We don't need governments to pick winners it's a waste of resources. We need them to state what criteria energy production should meet. That's how you do things rationally and with your head rather than your emotions.

I could ask you another question. How far are you ready to go? Are you going to war with China over coal? With India? Are you going to hinder developing countries from using fossil fuels?

If you really believe it's catastrophic then drastic measures are going to be needed not just feel good things like going vegan and saying "i believe in climate change"

The cynical answer is about 7-15: themselves, their family and close friends. Or at least thats how it appears in the US given how little we do about it, even though we (half) give it plenty of lip service.

What do you want to do exactly about it which won't itself potentially cause harm and that you know will help.

What kind of question is that? Do you seriously expect me to give an "exact" solution? Furthermore how many complicated issues have solutions that have no potential to cause harm and are guaranteed to help. I think it is pretty clear at this point that there is no magic solution to climate change and we have to make some collective sacrifices. Individually I did make a "sacrifice" by going vegan. After 3 years I haven't noticed any harm and I'm confident it has helped about epsilon amount. I guess that fits your criteria.

And my question again is simply what do you propose we should do collectively that's not going to be just as big a threat itself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com