I would rather have my elected ones work on a framework that will govern how this immigration could occur and how to make it work in everyone's bests interests. But it seems that people will mostly vote for whoever tells them he or she will make the country impenetrable.
Europe's population is aging drastically, we make less children and our workforce is shrinking. We produce less people that can offer social/medical/health care to the elders, less people who can pay taxes, and also less people who can defend the territory in case of armed conflict. Retirement planning is a catastrophy (younger generations are privileging individualized financial planning mechanisms instead of State protected and tax deducible solutions, and conversion rates for pension funds are also diminishing year after year). Finally, "non-white" immigrants seem to be perceived by locals as posing a security threat and nothing more.
Whether I look at my family, my friends or my colleagues, I feel surrounded by people who refuse to engage in the thought experiment further than "we should reinforce our borders".
Am I in denial when I acknowledge that both a mass immigration will occur towards the northern hemisphere, whether smoothly, or by force, and that any economy needs to preserve a strong workforce to keep florishing?
What am I missing here?
If I acknowledge that some communities are more likely to live their daily lives under these three factors altogether, it could explain why these communities may be more vulnerable to daily life challenges, and more easily resort to violence. Still, that doesn't give me a causal link between racial/cultural diversity and violence, far from it, but I can understand why those who prefer taking shortcuts may end up reaching this conclusion.
This shortcut is also very comfortable for the peace of mind: once I attribute violence to racial/cultural diversity, I can also safely conclude that I will never be part of the problem (if I consider myself as being part of the "good" racial/cultural group)...
I have noticed a very very very strong correlation of how dangerous it can be just to walk outside alone, or at night, or walk in public with your cellphone. I believe there is a link between violence and race and culture.
I am sorry to ask but I have the feeling that something is missing in your comment. You said you have lived in poor areas and observed violence, or did you mean that you witnessed violence only in a subset of the areas you listed?
Contrast that with living in a very poor neighborhood in Chisinau, in Moldova. Iasi, in Romania, Kiev, and Saint petersburg. I never really felt in danger at all, I could walk home at whatever hour, go on a walk, take out my cellphone. The closest to being dangerous was desperate drug addicts in St. Petersburg.
These places/slums in eastern europe are just as poor, have the same problems with the same drugs. But the level of random violence in 'diverse' places just doesn't exist. I know it sounds fucked up like I am a fox news anchor, or something, but it is just something I have noticed.
It seems the more monoculture a society is the more safe it is in the poor areas. Specifically Europe, Asia, and the middle east. I don't know how to explain it without sounding like a racist so I wont.
It has consistently failed to integrate other migrants, especially from the MENA countries. At this point, experience has proven that such large integrations are and will be out of reach for the EU.
The only logical conclusion is therefore that the EU has to prepare to reject further migration. Even hopeless cases like Sweden are starting to take action in that direction.
You're postulating many things that are not necessarily true (by definition) : - that massive immigration to the EU will succeed - that EU needs more unskilled labor
So "serious" politicians shouldn't promise one thing or its opposite but have a global view of the best interests of THEIR electors and act accordingly.
I will hence have to take the antithesis to balance it overall : - with automation and the current unemployed people ("natives" or not) already in the EU, more unskilled labor is not what is needed - a cohesive society is not solely based on its productive capacity
Sun too hot for agriculture? Stick some PV over it as shade.
Not enough water, stick some PV over it for shade, use it to power trickle irrigation of desalinated water.
If carbon offsets are used to install PV in such nations, it's a win-win-win-win.
Another post talks about a new generation buying battery EV RVs to live in. If they did, where would they tend to go? Somewhere where the climate provides cheap solar power and low heating needs.
One narrow interpretation is that one particular study that you did not cite got it wrong.
One broad interpretation is that we should not pay attention or give credence to the good faith estimates offered at the time.
I get tired of snarky one-liners that don't say what they mean. They do not promote useful discussion. My comment here would not be necessary if you took a few minutes to elaborate about what you meant.
Lastly: Estimates change. No model is perfect but some are useful.
I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or just around the corner). No, really, this time it's for real! Donate here to stop it.
Most of the "solutions" I've seen are worse than the problem. Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about.
Carbon offset credits? Really?
With the amount of alarmism and blatant opportunism in the space, it's pretty hard to sift through and focus on real, meaningful change. Like not wasting precious aquifer water on lawns.
Simple stuff that would have real impact. Taxing the hell out of single use plastic water bottles.
We've done it before. The anti CFC thing was a huge success. Seems like that should be a model to follow.
Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one.
And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.
Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency.
Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago.
Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased.
Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be.
I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0].
Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
When you expand the window, the picture changes.
Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
> It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no?
No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960.
Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time.
Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.
For the heat wave chart, the stated reason for this is that it's the date where most urban areas started keeping careful records.
They also, as a footnote[1] include an image going back much farther [2] which completely changes the picture and analysis.
However the text description is all about the increase since 1960, only barely mentioning that it was much worse in the 1930s.
How is it possible to look at this and not question it?
Making false statements? Slowing down and reminding myself?
I've spent countless hours looking at original noaa data related to climate change. I've seen a very clear distortion of data in reporting.
> Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.
That's great advice, maybe we should both take it? [3] [4]
I don't need to go through every single measure here, it's pretty easy to discover for yourself if you take a real look at the data.
The severity and frequency of things like droughts, severe weather, heat waves are flat, if not in decline when you look across a broader window.
Sea level rise is pretty linear for as long as it's been measured [5]
NOAA data is pretty clear on this.
Arctic sea ice? It has a well known oscillation that generally runs close to 180 degrees out of phase with antarctic sea ice. Again, super easy to learn about if you dig in. Did you know that Arctic sea ice actually increased from 1979 to 2015? [6]
Also, measuring sea ice is notoriously difficult and error prone, and satellite data doesn't do a very good job of it. Also easy to learn about.
My overall point, which for some strange reason gathers a ton of open hostility, is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...).
It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice!
[1] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
[2] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images...
[3] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
[4] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
[5] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S20959...
I'll point it out again. This:
> It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no?
Is quite different from this:
> A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc...
You can't have it both ways.
> Making false statements?
Yes. I've demonstrated clearly that you wrote a false statement by saying "all". Then you shifted your position to say "a bunch of them".
Why not acknowledge your mistake?
> Slowing down and reminding myself?
Yes. When was the last time you actually said to yourself, e.g. "I have a tendency to get annoyed by how reporters cover climate change. I should not let my annoyance spill over into other trains of thought, such as the claim 'climate change models are alarmist'".
Adjust as needed to suit your situation and thought patterns. If you try it, I think you'll find benefit.
This kind of deflection does not reflect well on you. On the other hand, you could accept and acknowledge that you spoke/wrote incorrectly.
Please show me the personal attack.
Here is what I wrote:
> No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. / Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. / Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe.
I said you made a false statement. You did. I did not call you names; e.g. I did not call you a liar.
Claiming there is a personal attack when there is none is not acceptable. I can criticize your ideas -- that is fair game.
It is understandable to feel hurt when ideas you hold are criticized. You may consider these ideas to be part of your identity. But these are not personal attacks.
I respect that you have researched the climate change data. I likely would agree with some of your conclusions.
How does the data referenced map to your understanding of climate change?
I asked many questions about your overall point. I would not use the word "hostile" to characterize tough questions.
Yes, you are getting pushback. I can't speak to others, but I've found your core arguments to be too vague to be useful. I don't think it is "strange" when some people to question what you write.
> It's amazing how just pointing that out
Well, you "aren't just pointing that out". There is context. My many comments around this thread show that I've engaged and tried to make sense of what you mean, in terms of concrete examples.
Also, I hope you can recognize that some of your language resembles climate-denial language. With this in mind, you would do well to be mindful of how you are coming across.
Also, another observation. The language you are using matches the language of "I'm the victim here". I don't know if you intended this. That kind of language is regularly used to deflect.
Please reply to my other comments. I am willing to consider your arguments -- probably more so than many people here on HN who read your comment and probably thought it wasn't worth their time to respond. But I'd prefer to read them coming from a published source. Why? I'd like to read not only the content, but also about the authors, the funding, and the counter-responses.
I'm old enough to remember when being skeptical of authority was actively encouraged in liberal thought.
Sorry for the snarky response, you seem like a genuinely decent person.
I think, like a lot of folks who engage in this topic, that it's just exhausting.
It seems like any opinion apart from "we're all gonna die!" is just mercilessly attacked.
The data is all there, it's pretty easy to follow.
I'm just sort of over the whole "we must radically restructure civilization because of these climate models" stuff.
I don't think it's warranted based on the data I've seen.
Well, what you see depends on where you look. Where are you looking?
Perhaps it is time for you to look elsewhere?
> I'm old enough to remember when being skeptical of authority was actively encouraged in liberal thought.
Your response is a redirection. Try again to answer the question. I'm probing to see if you have some self-awareness.
Now, if one makes a claim that there is a "very clear distortion", it is incumbent upon you to show the analysis -- or to cite it. You are the one making the claim; don't ask someone else to do it. A credible analysis must be statistical, not anecdotal.
Thank you for giving some concrete examples of what you mean.
However, I'm still not convinced by the "that can be solved today" criteria. One key problem with such criteria is that someone can say "that can't be solved today" in order to avoid taking action. What is your response?
In my other comment, I offered a very high level summary of how science, technology, governance, economics, and finance relate w.r.t. climate change. I was hoping to see your response. Your response these very much connects to the "that can be solved today" criteria.
Sustained investment in research and development is important because science and technology can expand the solution space. In parallel, more public awareness can increase the political will for increasing the budget for action. (Of course, there are many other components necessary for humanity to address the situation.)
You wrote "alarmist" but did not explain what you meant. I asked detailed questions so that we could get on the same page. No response, right? Or did I miss it?
You give specific examples that fall into the category of, e.g. (paraphrased) "if look at X data over a sufficiently long time frame, it does not show a clear trend." Yes, this is correct for some cases. And these are pointed out in the EPA descriptions. So this does not support your alarmist claim.
You complain of being personally attacked.
In summary, this trajectory looks a lot like moving the goal posts away from explaining what is alarmist about climate change models.
If you've changed your mind about what claims you want to make, please do so. But I have not seen good argumentation or explanation for what seemed to be your core argument.
> I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models ...
Which climate models are pessimistic in your view?
Which models are alarmist? Please define alarmist as you are using it. What exactly are you measuring when you say "alarmist"? Is there a threshold?
Let's get some common footing. Here's a thought experiment and question: Let's say Organization X finds in 90% of model runs, the global climate is disrupted to the point that the USA will face between $400B and $800B of additional costs starting in 2040 and increasing somewhere around 1% to 3% per year.
* Is summarizing this finding alarmist? Of course not -- it is only describing a model's prediction.
* Is the model alarmist? What would make it alarmist? If the assumptions are unrealistic? But all models are imperfect. So how unrealistic must they be?
On the flip side, What models do you recommend? Please share how your favorite models are funded.
> ... and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
According to your definitions of "real", "concrete", and "addressable".
Do you think NASA's writing on climate change does not reflect reality? That is is not concrete? That the problems are not addressable? So is NASA alarmist w.r.t. climate change?
What about the reinsurance industry? Let's take Swiss Re. Are they alarmist?
Please point us to some solid writing (such as a credible report) that summarizes your views.
Two final questions: have you studied economics? built predictive models? I'd like to get a sense of good ways to have this discussion. Perhaps we can cut through a bunch of preliminaries and cut to the chase.
Do you agree that the following framing is a useful way to think about our response to climate change? Technological constraints define what levers can be pulled and at what cost, in the short-run at least. Political decisions drive how governments spend money. Economic factors constrain financial and monetary options. Over the medium-term, investments in science and technology tend to increase expand the option space.
Many neoclassical economists would argue against this approach. Fix the incentives, they would say, and things will work out.
Your argument is incredulity? Give your reasons. I don't want a vapid rant.
Except for all the people who take climate change seriously, like the EU and China:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-...
(1) expensive
(2) difficult to manage administratively
(3) imbalanced across programs
(4) unresponsive as conditions or impacts change
(5) corruptible, since special interests could focus their efforts to carve out irrational and unfair exceptions for themselves
(6) overly politicized during budgetary decisions
... compared to addressing common causes more broadly.
IPCC, see summary of Q3.9 on p9 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/