Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all
69 comments
He's also a registered lobbyist, founded and runs Environmental Progress - essentially a pro nuclear lobby group, and is rabidly anti-renewables - inventing "facts" to make them look bad.
He does far more damage than good, and you basically can't trust a word he says or cites.
He does far more damage than good, and you basically can't trust a word he says or cites.
Pro nuclear is a good thing though no? It seems like the solution to climate change and energy production. I know I'm very skeptical of people who claim to be pro-environment then rally against nuclear power.
Nuclear is a solution in countries such as India and China where it can be constructed for cheaper, but in the west it is dying due to the high cost. If nuclear only compared unfavorablely to fossil fuels the externalities could be addressed by a carbon tax. But because it compares unfavorably to renewables it is really dying.
Except renewables cannot deliver a whole network on their own ever, so there is no competition.
The cost is a fake issue, because nuclear competes against coal and gas power plants and not renewables.
You need a base load capability for smoothing in an electrical grid. Most renewables are the exactly opposite. The exception is biogas or other gasification plants a these cannot handle the required load at all. Not even hydropower.
Look at what happens in Australia if you push too much solar energy (same with wind) on the network.
You need a base load capability for smoothing in an electrical grid. Most renewables are the exactly opposite. The exception is biogas or other gasification plants a these cannot handle the required load at all. Not even hydropower.
Look at what happens in Australia if you push too much solar energy (same with wind) on the network.
> Except renewables cannot deliver a whole network, so it does not.
Solar and wind need to be paired peaker plants. Conventional nuclear doesn't provide peaking ability.
Battery powered peakers are quite expensive, but the need for them can be reduced drastically through over-provisioning and interconnection.
Solar and wind need to be paired peaker plants. Conventional nuclear doesn't provide peaking ability.
Battery powered peakers are quite expensive, but the need for them can be reduced drastically through over-provisioning and interconnection.
If we could overprovision solar and wind, we wouldn't have the problem now? I find that hard to believe. What happens when you need extra load at night or during a country wide lull in wind speed?
Nuclear reduces the need for peakers exactly because it can overprovision reliably.
You could also make nuclear peakers if you wanted reasonably easily too. Nuclear plants have tunable output to a point, they're just slow and hard to fully stop, so you would make a design optimized for very tunable output and high peak power. (0)
Solar and wind cannot suddenly overprovision. The sources either exist or not, you can at most ground them instead of collecting power.
0) IAEA - Non-baseload operation of nuclear power plants: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11104/non-baseload-operati...
Nuclear reduces the need for peakers exactly because it can overprovision reliably.
You could also make nuclear peakers if you wanted reasonably easily too. Nuclear plants have tunable output to a point, they're just slow and hard to fully stop, so you would make a design optimized for very tunable output and high peak power. (0)
Solar and wind cannot suddenly overprovision. The sources either exist or not, you can at most ground them instead of collecting power.
0) IAEA - Non-baseload operation of nuclear power plants: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11104/non-baseload-operati...
IIRC It's only 2 or 3 years ago (Not certain, but astonishingly recent) Australia was getting over 70% of power from coal, including a good proportion of lignite. Right down there with the worst, such as Poland. They've under-funded the grid for years, and belatedly rushed into solar at extreme speed.
Not surprising it brought consequences, they seem intent on approaching it really chaotically. :)
Not surprising it brought consequences, they seem intent on approaching it really chaotically. :)
Who is approaching it less chaotically?
Everyone is already behind the schedule with making the energy grid zero emission.
Everyone is already behind the schedule with making the energy grid zero emission.
UK has been quietly and steadily adding wind over a longer time, and modernising the grid without so much as a hiccough, reaching around 35% (ignoring biomass). The grid is still underfunded and lacking in some respects though. The Nordics have progressed similarly, but further, though I think Denmark had a couple of missteps. Sweden is over half renewables by now, Finland not far behind, Norway and Iceland (OK, they have their geothermal advantage) up near 70%.
All over the last 15 or 20 years.
Sure, I'd like everyone to go that fast, or faster, but trying for the speed of Australia's solar rollout seems to be asking for trouble. Don't know enough to say if there was anything unavoidable, or unique to Australia in their problems...
All over the last 15 or 20 years.
Sure, I'd like everyone to go that fast, or faster, but trying for the speed of Australia's solar rollout seems to be asking for trouble. Don't know enough to say if there was anything unavoidable, or unique to Australia in their problems...
The real issue in Australia, as I imagine it is in most countries, is the fossil fuel industries lobbying the government. Oh and because of lies and misinformation told to voters (thanks Facebook), the country voted in a creationist-level PM, who believes that if the whole world burns, it's a punishment from god.
>dying due to the high cost
But if you want to fight climate change, surely any cost is worth it? Otherwise you're not serious about it. Subsidize it, do whatever it takes to save the planet. Renewables are a false solution, they're quicker to build but cannot produce energy reliably, need to be replaced often, take too much space etc. If they could replace coal, surely Germany would've done so already.
But if you want to fight climate change, surely any cost is worth it? Otherwise you're not serious about it. Subsidize it, do whatever it takes to save the planet. Renewables are a false solution, they're quicker to build but cannot produce energy reliably, need to be replaced often, take too much space etc. If they could replace coal, surely Germany would've done so already.
So we're not allowed to criticize nuclear due to it's cost, but you're allowed to dismiss renewables because of their cost?
Where did I dismiss renewables due to cost? I'm dismissing them due to inconvenience. For example consider how many solar panels need to be installed to replace a nuclear station, how much area will they cover, how many of them will need to be replaced every day, how a few non-sunny days in a row would render it useless, etc.
Nothing is "inconvenient" for a corporation. All "inconvenient" means is that they have to pay people to do it or put up with it. IOW, a cost.
Nobody needs to use coal. Gas turbines are better in every way. Germany's addiction to coal is political not technological.
Renewables are part of the solutions but what makes up the rest will depend on where you live. The solution for Sweden won't be the same as the solution for Hawaii. It's hard to talk generally on the internet about this because it only makes sense to discuss power generation in a particular place.
Renewables are part of the solutions but what makes up the rest will depend on where you live. The solution for Sweden won't be the same as the solution for Hawaii. It's hard to talk generally on the internet about this because it only makes sense to discuss power generation in a particular place.
Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes a complete mockery of his claims. TL;DR He lies about it and makes shit up, repeatedly, in all his pieces. What's he afraid of?
Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.
Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.
You basically can't trust a word he says or cites.
He mostly cites the IPCC and climate scientists. Or are you saying those sources aren't trustworthy?
I read the article. Every word of it is true. It can be summed up as:
Lots of people, especially teenagers, are starting to suffer mental health problems because they think the world is about to end. The world isn't about to end, this is a lie. The people claiming it is are mostly making it up, or misquoting other people, or in one case a journalist misheard "eight billion" as "a billion" and other comedies of errors. It's important that people understand what climate science really says before a teenager does something they can't come back from.
He mostly cites the IPCC and climate scientists. Or are you saying those sources aren't trustworthy?
I read the article. Every word of it is true. It can be summed up as:
Lots of people, especially teenagers, are starting to suffer mental health problems because they think the world is about to end. The world isn't about to end, this is a lie. The people claiming it is are mostly making it up, or misquoting other people, or in one case a journalist misheard "eight billion" as "a billion" and other comedies of errors. It's important that people understand what climate science really says before a teenager does something they can't come back from.
> Lots of people, especially teenagers, are starting to suffer mental health problems because they think the world is about to end
Can you source this?
> It's important that people understand what climate science really says before a teenager does something they can't come back from.
Are you saying that climate change is so widely accepted and feared that it's causing the rate of suicides to increase? Wouldn't a better indicator of the acknowledgement of (supposedly-overblown) effects of climate change be, you know, individuals and governments taking action to curtail those effects instead of walking out of global accords [1], or actively contributing to the acceleration of those effects [2]?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40127326 [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/world/americas/brazil-ama...
Can you source this?
> It's important that people understand what climate science really says before a teenager does something they can't come back from.
Are you saying that climate change is so widely accepted and feared that it's causing the rate of suicides to increase? Wouldn't a better indicator of the acknowledgement of (supposedly-overblown) effects of climate change be, you know, individuals and governments taking action to curtail those effects instead of walking out of global accords [1], or actively contributing to the acceleration of those effects [2]?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40127326 [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/world/americas/brazil-ama...
Can you source this?
The first paragraphs of the article give both direct quotes from people saying they had that experience, and then cites a report from British psychologists saying they'd observed this effect at scale. Did you read the article?
Are you saying that climate change is so widely accepted and feared that it's causing the rate of suicides to increase.
It risks doing exactly that:
"Studies from around the world document growing anxiety and depression, particularly among children, about climate change."
People aren't scared of climate change as actually observed, they're scared of what they're being fed by people like Greta Thunberg, who is lying about the expected scale of the impact. The fact that journalists, politicians and even a few scientists are saying this despite it being false is what the article is about.
The first paragraphs of the article give both direct quotes from people saying they had that experience, and then cites a report from British psychologists saying they'd observed this effect at scale. Did you read the article?
Are you saying that climate change is so widely accepted and feared that it's causing the rate of suicides to increase.
It risks doing exactly that:
"Studies from around the world document growing anxiety and depression, particularly among children, about climate change."
People aren't scared of climate change as actually observed, they're scared of what they're being fed by people like Greta Thunberg, who is lying about the expected scale of the impact. The fact that journalists, politicians and even a few scientists are saying this despite it being false is what the article is about.
Do you have a source for your claim that that BTI is "against fossil fuel reduction"?
And why do you include "pro-geoengineering" in that list of "bad things BTI believes"? If we aren't going to significantly reduce emissions (and after 40 years of political inaction that should be obvious to everyone), geoengineering may be our best response to climate change.
And why do you include "pro-geoengineering" in that list of "bad things BTI believes"? If we aren't going to significantly reduce emissions (and after 40 years of political inaction that should be obvious to everyone), geoengineering may be our best response to climate change.
I'm not against geoengineering, and it will be part of the actions that posterity will have to do in order to deal with climate change, but why leave the major changes in lifestyle that will be required to fight it for future generations? We must accept that we need to massively increase energy efficiency, and a huge part of that is abandoning the "everyone gets a car and a McMansion".
We should not default to geoengineering. We should default to reduction of carbon pollution, obviously, then when it isn't enough, start geoengineering, which will probably also be necessary.
The start with geoengineering faction is just a few steps away from the "it isn't happening" crowd.
We should not default to geoengineering. We should default to reduction of carbon pollution, obviously, then when it isn't enough, start geoengineering, which will probably also be necessary.
The start with geoengineering faction is just a few steps away from the "it isn't happening" crowd.
So glad to see this comment here. The entire time I was reading that I kept thinking, "I need to google this guy, he's clearly got skin in the game."
He is trying to counter claims of "4 billion casualties".
And similar claims like "the world is going to end in 12 years".
No one has made those claims, can you cite an instance?
That was a quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
And the article contains something similar:
“One of my friends was convinced there would be a collapse of society in 2030 and ‘near term human extinction’ in 2050,” said Jeffrey. “She concluded that we’ve got ten years left to live.”
And the article contains something similar:
“One of my friends was convinced there would be a collapse of society in 2030 and ‘near term human extinction’ in 2050,” said Jeffrey. “She concluded that we’ve got ten years left to live.”
It is in the article.
No, it very much isn't. "Adults tell children the end of the world is coming" and someone's random unnamed teen friend concludes they have ten years left to live are.
Which is significant of nothing at all - mere hyperbole. The only claims based on 12 years I have heard are based on reality of the IPCC reports and their assorted scenarios to track particular temperature changes by 2100. On that there have been claims we have 12 years to get on track - very different to the world ending in 2031. On a Tuesday at 14;00.
Which is significant of nothing at all - mere hyperbole. The only claims based on 12 years I have heard are based on reality of the IPCC reports and their assorted scenarios to track particular temperature changes by 2100. On that there have been claims we have 12 years to get on track - very different to the world ending in 2031. On a Tuesday at 14;00.
> On that there have been claims we have 12 years to get on track
In order to meet an arbitrary mark chosen primarily because people like round numbers. Nonetheless, the IPCC report was reasonable, and didn't conclude with "we're all going to die".
But then celebrities and social media oversimplified that and people who get most of their information from celebrities or social media came to believe that they're going to die, soon.
That's alarmism.
And the author called out alarmism, not the IPCC, so pointing out that the IPCC aren't alarmists isn't relevant.
In order to meet an arbitrary mark chosen primarily because people like round numbers. Nonetheless, the IPCC report was reasonable, and didn't conclude with "we're all going to die".
But then celebrities and social media oversimplified that and people who get most of their information from celebrities or social media came to believe that they're going to die, soon.
That's alarmism.
And the author called out alarmism, not the IPCC, so pointing out that the IPCC aren't alarmists isn't relevant.
Multiple claims from XR and "He told me that the Guardian reporter had misunderstood him and that he had said, “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or even half of that,” not “a billion people.”".
So XR + The Guardian. So it is very much in the article.
So XR + The Guardian. So it is very much in the article.
"If you are aware of the science you're priviliged enough to survive climate change, no need to worry just because the 4 billion people in other countries are going to die"
Or the 4 billion number is just a wild guess to emphasize climate change being a big problem. What's the science behind estimating such a number?
> In my last column, I pointed out that there is no scientific basis for claims that climate change will be apocalyptic
If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. It seems pretty unreasonable to say "not apocalyptic? oh then that's not so bad, what's all the fuss about" when the situation is this dire. We could avert a lot of it if we actually did anything about it.
If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. It seems pretty unreasonable to say "not apocalyptic? oh then that's not so bad, what's all the fuss about" when the situation is this dire. We could avert a lot of it if we actually did anything about it.
> If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad.
No, the science doesn't imply that climate change is going to mean literally everyone dead, only a massive cost to maintain things as they are today. Contrawise, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said "the world will end" by 2030 if we don't stop climate change. (Source: https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-...)
So, yes there are people being absolutely, ridiculously, unscientifically hysterical about the effects of climate change. Unscientific alarmism is just as harmful toward efforts to properly manage the global ecology as the unscientific denial of changes.
No, the science doesn't imply that climate change is going to mean literally everyone dead, only a massive cost to maintain things as they are today. Contrawise, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said "the world will end" by 2030 if we don't stop climate change. (Source: https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-...)
So, yes there are people being absolutely, ridiculously, unscientifically hysterical about the effects of climate change. Unscientific alarmism is just as harmful toward efforts to properly manage the global ecology as the unscientific denial of changes.
I'm not sure what the scientific definition of "apocalyptic" is, but in my mind the biggest aspect of climate change people seem to overlook in assessing the potential fallout is mass displacement of people.
We've already witnessed extreme political radicalisation within Western countries as a result of displacement of people from Syria: numbers in the order of a few million. It seems likely that displacement from climate change would be a significant percentage of world population (8+ billion soon). The reaction to that will be apocalyptic.
We've already witnessed extreme political radicalisation within Western countries as a result of displacement of people from Syria: numbers in the order of a few million. It seems likely that displacement from climate change would be a significant percentage of world population (8+ billion soon). The reaction to that will be apocalyptic.
I often wonder if we would be better off framing it in terms of the financial costs. How much is it going to cost to build a wall around New York, evacuate low lying areas in Florida, move agricultural production around the world, accept millions of climate refugees.
For example, you could have read the article.
It tries to counter claims of "4 billion casualties".
It tries to counter claims of "4 billion casualties".
What does "really bad" mean? How is the current situation "this dire"?
This kind of statements is exactly what this article is about.
This kind of statements is exactly what this article is about.
No, that is not what the article is about. One of the researchers he interviewed asked the Guardian to correct its quotation but stood by his prediction of four billion deaths caused by climate change. The article in no way denies that the situation is bad or dire.
While I agree that alarmists who think the world is ending in 10-20 years are wildly off-base, Shellenberger is badly understating things at times.
He asked an IPCC scientist about what was unmanageable about a 3 ft+ sea level rise, and after said scientist explained the numerous serious scenarios his glib conclusion was:
"In other words, the problems from sea level rise that Oppenheimer is calling “unmanageable” are situations like the ones that already occur, such as in the days following Hurricane Katrina, where societies become temporarily difficult to manage. (Katrina killed over 1,800)."
This is a really bad hot take. Number one, Hurricane Katrina was a one-time weather event. Sea level rise means you're always going to be dealing with trying to hold back the sea. In parts of the world that are already struggling with poverty, how are they gonna come up with the billions of dollars to engineer, build, and maintain sea walls and dykes?
And that's not even getting into the fact that if you're starting out with much higher sea level, storm surge is gonna cause that much more damage. On top of that, significantly warmer seas are going to cause much stronger storms.
People displaced by said consequences of climate change are going destabilize governments and/or cause conflicts. There are many hot spots in the world where long standing tensions could burst into open conflict if a climate-related disaster or crisis hits.
He asked an IPCC scientist about what was unmanageable about a 3 ft+ sea level rise, and after said scientist explained the numerous serious scenarios his glib conclusion was:
"In other words, the problems from sea level rise that Oppenheimer is calling “unmanageable” are situations like the ones that already occur, such as in the days following Hurricane Katrina, where societies become temporarily difficult to manage. (Katrina killed over 1,800)."
This is a really bad hot take. Number one, Hurricane Katrina was a one-time weather event. Sea level rise means you're always going to be dealing with trying to hold back the sea. In parts of the world that are already struggling with poverty, how are they gonna come up with the billions of dollars to engineer, build, and maintain sea walls and dykes?
And that's not even getting into the fact that if you're starting out with much higher sea level, storm surge is gonna cause that much more damage. On top of that, significantly warmer seas are going to cause much stronger storms.
People displaced by said consequences of climate change are going destabilize governments and/or cause conflicts. There are many hot spots in the world where long standing tensions could burst into open conflict if a climate-related disaster or crisis hits.
We don't have to be surprised about some of these events, since they have been predicted in the scriptures, for now, for a long time (ice melting, storms, quakes, waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, fires/smoke, and other significant catastrophic events--not just the usual levels of them).
I do appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But it seems to me we are not competent to solve such things when we have largely rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to address important issues globally, and in our personal lives.
And we can be OK. Related thoughts at http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html , a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).
I do appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But it seems to me we are not competent to solve such things when we have largely rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to address important issues globally, and in our personal lives.
And we can be OK. Related thoughts at http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html , a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).
I highly recommend reading David Wallace-Wells' "The Uninhabitable Earth" - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41552709-the-uninhabitab...
The book is quite information dense, intellectually honest with regard to the likelihood of various outcomes, and offers the clearest and broadest assessment I've yet read of where we are and what lies for us in the future.
Describing the contemporary climate discourse as "alarmist" denies the severity and scale of the problem we face.
The book is quite information dense, intellectually honest with regard to the likelihood of various outcomes, and offers the clearest and broadest assessment I've yet read of where we are and what lies for us in the future.
Describing the contemporary climate discourse as "alarmist" denies the severity and scale of the problem we face.
I thought Greta Thunberg was pretty factual?
She is aggressive, emotional, and passionate about the need for change, but she doesn't present new facts or policies herself. She leaves that up to scientists.
> "I don’t want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action."[1]
She's even been asked to make specific recommendations, and she says to follow the science.
1. https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-chang...
> "I don’t want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action."[1]
She's even been asked to make specific recommendations, and she says to follow the science.
1. https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-chang...
I am not sure if flagging this helps. Why not discuss a controversial position?
Flagging helps here because the author (with whom, fwiw, I basically agree - let's have more nuclear power!) cannot be trusted to supply reliable information, ie not to distort data whenever it suits him.
https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposi...
https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-...
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...
https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposi...
https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-...
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...
Neither can many journalists, but we don't systematically flag stories found in the NY Times.
The article in question gives many citations, interviews with original sources and is in general an excellent piece of journalism. It's also arguing against a ridiculous, extreme position whose prime proponents have frequently admitted they're lying. Trying to suppress this article because it's written by someone in favour of nuclear power is exactly what makes people suspicious of all environmentalist narratives because how do they know they're getting the full picture?
The article in question gives many citations, interviews with original sources and is in general an excellent piece of journalism. It's also arguing against a ridiculous, extreme position whose prime proponents have frequently admitted they're lying. Trying to suppress this article because it's written by someone in favour of nuclear power is exactly what makes people suspicious of all environmentalist narratives because how do they know they're getting the full picture?
> Why not discuss a controversial position?
One reason is if the argument is made in bad faith by a paid shill, as is the case here.
There are lots of discussions happening now about nuclear vs. renewables vs. fossil fuels. There's no need to waste anyone's time broadcasting a piece like this that presumed its conclusion when a check was signed.
One reason is if the argument is made in bad faith by a paid shill, as is the case here.
There are lots of discussions happening now about nuclear vs. renewables vs. fossil fuels. There's no need to waste anyone's time broadcasting a piece like this that presumed its conclusion when a check was signed.
The author is a paid advocate for nuclear power.
Isn't that one of the cleanest options available that can actually meet our energy demands?
He's also against renewables. This is a shill piece.
Is he against renewables as a matter of principle or because he finds them less effective? I think there's a big difference.
This submission is now flagged. Please unflag it, there is nothing wrong with the article.
It's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582
It's interesting to compare and contrast climate change and nuclear war. When I grew up it was common knowledge that the world could end at any point in time via nuclear holocaust. It was more or less the most direct existential threat to humanity the world had ever seen. It did spawn some nihilistic artistic movements and general detachment, but I'd say that the anxiety people felt was much lower than what you hear from the younger generations re: climate change.
Even on this site, you'll see many people say that they don't want to have kids because of climate change. I don't recall people in the 80s saying they wouldn't reproduce due to the future threat of nuclear war.
I'm not sure what the exact cause is but I suspect it has something to do with the how the different generations process authority and media messaging. Earlier generations being much more skeptical of what they are told.
Even on this site, you'll see many people say that they don't want to have kids because of climate change. I don't recall people in the 80s saying they wouldn't reproduce due to the future threat of nuclear war.
I'm not sure what the exact cause is but I suspect it has something to do with the how the different generations process authority and media messaging. Earlier generations being much more skeptical of what they are told.
> how the different generations process authority and media messaging
The big difference is that the current generation gets it's information from Instagram/..., from peers, not authority, thus at the same time they can be skeptical of authority while totally believing whatever circulates on Instagram (for example the recent fake fact how "Amazon, the lungs of the planet, are burning", the fake fact being that Amazon generates 20% of the world oxygen)
The big difference is that the current generation gets it's information from Instagram/..., from peers, not authority, thus at the same time they can be skeptical of authority while totally believing whatever circulates on Instagram (for example the recent fake fact how "Amazon, the lungs of the planet, are burning", the fake fact being that Amazon generates 20% of the world oxygen)
Also the fake fact that the Amazon rain forest was being burned down instead of an increased fraction of the forest was being burned this year to clear for more farmland over decline in the percentage in recent years.
Which is an issue, because it's best if as much of the Amazon is preserved as possible, but not the apocalyptic one of the entire rainforest going up in smoke.
Which is an issue, because it's best if as much of the Amazon is preserved as possible, but not the apocalyptic one of the entire rainforest going up in smoke.
[deleted]
Having kids didn't make nuclear war more likely. Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint.
> Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint.
Only for an odd definition of “your”.
Only for an odd definition of “your”.
This article manages to be mostly correct while at the same time being several shades of ok boomer. Sure, we're not all going to die. But on the other hand a major source of geopolitical instability comes from crop failure, and people still seem rather alarmed about that war in Syria and all the refugees.
The fact that we're in a global mass extinction event is somewhat troubling as well, even given that not all of the extinctions are caused by climate change.
It's not the one-meter sea level rise (optimistic case). It's the one meter plus more hurricanes with more storm surge. Yes, we can managed retreat. But people really don't want to do that, and then one day you have your sewer system under water.
That could have happened with a big enough hurricane anyway, but climate change just makes a lot of problems bigger. It's almost never a prime mover, it's a statistical problem, which in the short term makes the numbers a little worse for all of us. But enough of those numbers are changing that we should be alarmed. Life expectancy decreasing a year or two, as it is in the US right now, should be alarming, even if it is statistics, and climate is not really that different.
And if you're using "15 if statements", it doesn't usually mean you're wrong, it just means you need to refactor your code.
The fact that we're in a global mass extinction event is somewhat troubling as well, even given that not all of the extinctions are caused by climate change.
It's not the one-meter sea level rise (optimistic case). It's the one meter plus more hurricanes with more storm surge. Yes, we can managed retreat. But people really don't want to do that, and then one day you have your sewer system under water.
That could have happened with a big enough hurricane anyway, but climate change just makes a lot of problems bigger. It's almost never a prime mover, it's a statistical problem, which in the short term makes the numbers a little worse for all of us. But enough of those numbers are changing that we should be alarmed. Life expectancy decreasing a year or two, as it is in the US right now, should be alarming, even if it is statistics, and climate is not really that different.
And if you're using "15 if statements", it doesn't usually mean you're wrong, it just means you need to refactor your code.
Hurting people is precisely the point of all of this alarmism. The goal is not to solve the "climate crisis", but to subvert the guilt of the people for self-serving needs of the few that stand to gain for society taking up measures deemed by them to "solve" the crisis.
OK, I'll bite.
How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years?
What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis.
The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.
How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years?
What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis.
The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.
There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ?
Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality?
And lets look at the proposed solutions:
- Going meatless. There is more and more evidence that the methane/CO2 emissions of meat industry is not very significant, atleast when you compare it to construction, cement and other industrial pollutants.
The more important question is, what is the alternative ? Insects protein ? GMO crop fueled veganism? Jurassic park is all about how unintended consequences can arise out of stupid interventions ? Meatless burgers etc are full of junk nutrition and full of stuff like sunflower and vegetable oils, oils a century ago were considered industrial oils and used as paint thinners.
- Green energy. Germany reversed their decision on Nuclear reactors to go green and the energy costs are 2x that of France. How do you expect to be competitive with other industries then ? It was the freeing up of stored chemical energy by James Watt that powered the greatest poverty lifting experiment in the history of Manking. There is no way Germany would get to 100% green energy by 2050 unless fusion, or everyone lives like they did in th 18th century or you kill off half the population.
- People consume less ? Pray why is that virtue-signaling dipshits like Lenardo Di Fraudio, Attenborough fly around in private jets whereas we plebs have to give up on our tiny cars and electronics ? A single virtue signaling Hollywood nincompoop consumes 100x more than any average person would in an entire lifetime.
- More taxes so people consume less ?
Aren't we taxed enough ?
- Tax the rich ?
Gates and Bezos dont have a 100 billion sitting around in cash. Most of it is locked up as assets in Stock or another form. Besides, whatever millions they have paid so far is more than what 100,000 people would pay in a lifetime.
> There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ?
The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us.
> Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality?
It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries.
Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to.
The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories:
A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful.
There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1].
B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2].
C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others?
D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists.
E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive.
1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us.
> Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality?
It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries.
Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to.
The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories:
A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful.
There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1].
B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2].
C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others?
D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists.
E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive.
1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
You made your points well and I thank you for it. But my questions are behind the motivations of these alarmists mentally damaging our kids.
How are movements like the Extinction Rebellion, Great Thunberg, being funded ? How is she getting all the money to do her travel ? How did she go from doing strikes by herself at the school to the UN in less than a year ? I have heard of fairytales, but please don't tell me that she got there because of organic, viral support from people. There is BIG MONEY behind this. And how did she get so many celebrities to endorse her and have so many meeting arragned ?
I just don't see the people behind these protests and that makes me super skeptical of how "organic" these movements are.
Before someone accuses me of conspiracy theories. James Cameron produced a movie on How Vegan athletes are rewriting nutrition science (haven't watched it). Applying my "follow the money" universal rule, I came across an article that points out tothe fact that James Cameron has invested a lot of money in Vegan food corps
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/-avatar-d...
This is the kind of propaganda hiding real intentions that irks me to no end.
How are movements like the Extinction Rebellion, Great Thunberg, being funded ? How is she getting all the money to do her travel ? How did she go from doing strikes by herself at the school to the UN in less than a year ? I have heard of fairytales, but please don't tell me that she got there because of organic, viral support from people. There is BIG MONEY behind this. And how did she get so many celebrities to endorse her and have so many meeting arragned ?
I just don't see the people behind these protests and that makes me super skeptical of how "organic" these movements are.
Before someone accuses me of conspiracy theories. James Cameron produced a movie on How Vegan athletes are rewriting nutrition science (haven't watched it). Applying my "follow the money" universal rule, I came across an article that points out tothe fact that James Cameron has invested a lot of money in Vegan food corps
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/-avatar-d...
This is the kind of propaganda hiding real intentions that irks me to no end.
This is an article encouraging you to calm down and sit down. It's a careful cherry-pick of data, something that the IPCC report is not, and something that is extremely common in contemporary opinion pieces.
We should not be rosy about climate change or other pollution related issues. There exists massive quantities of evidence that can be covered at hacker news, and seeing this disinformation here when we have access to actual scientific information about climate change shocks me.