5 ms·
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find
by conflux0 17y ago
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
- Alex3917 17y agoA little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.
- robotrout 17y agoWell, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately. Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"? You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we let you. When you ignore what everybody knows, that the climate is warming regardless of human contribution, in the endless climate cycle that's 4 billion years old, we let you. You've defined the game to be, humans are causing extra global warming (you leave out the 'extra') and we let you. We've handicapped ourselves quite severely in this 'debate', so that you'll at least play with us. That you take advantage of this handicapping with not even a "thank you" is what is intellectually dishonest. So, this author makes the claim that there may be benefits to warmer climate. He's playing your game. He's bowing to your religion, by saying the words "warmer climate". But you're not happy. It's intellectually dishonest. Every action has costs and benefits. Obviously there would be benefits from a warmer climate. It's intellectually dishonest for you to claim otherwise. Do they outweigh the costs? I honestly don't know. We're a global community, right? A longer growing season in the temperate latitudes vs a shorter growing season in the tropical. Does this result in more food or less? I don't know (although I suspect it does). More people running their AC in the south vs less people running their heaters in the north. Is this a power savings or a power sink? (I suspect this ones goes to you, as heating is more efficient than cooling). There's a ton of analysis that could be done here, before you know the answer to this question. For you to just say "intellectually dishonest" without considering any of it is perhaps a result of your bias.
- Alex3917 17y agoI never claimed there couldn't be benefits of global warming. Certainly there will be benefits as well as drawbacks. But the thesis of the article is that the evidence of the serious consequences of global warming is quite thin. Saying that there will be benefits of global warming doesn't support that thesis; when people say the consequences of global warming will be severe, they are already taking into account the benefits.
- robotrout 17y ago> They are already taking into account the benefits. Really? Are you sure? What people? I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?
- calambrac 17y agoThere might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I feel like needs to be tweaked just to see what happens. But another far more important reason for me is that it seems like the actions needed to stop the possible human contribution to global warming are Good Things whether they're actually causing that particular problem or not. Spewing less crap into the air? Sounds great. More energy efficient cars/trucks/devices/appliances? Sounds great. Paying attention to energy costs expended on lighting, and as a side effect maybe getting to see stars in the sky over a city sometime? Awesome. I always wonder about the people who say we shouldn't take action. Because it's too expensive? That seems to miss the basic observation that the economy exists to serve the wants and needs of the people within it, not the other way around - if people decide this is something they value, that they want to work on, the economics will work out. I really think its something more basic, the traditional dichotomy between the personal and the common. Or maybe it really is just a cynical response from people in a current position of comfort who see what they're doing right now as threatened by any changes that need to be made.
- yters 17y agoNo, the most intellectually dishonest argument you can imagine is to claim something is maximally intellectually dishonest when you know full well it is not, because you are being dishonest about the very nature of intellectual dishonesty.
- Alex3917 17y agoIf you reread the article from the beginning, you will see that it is intellectually dishonest. Here is the thesis: "Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary." As you go through each of his paragraphs, do you really feel like he has taken the best conceptual arguments for the seriousness of the consequences of global warming and shown that the evidence for these scenarios is thin? He hasn't. Rather, his thesis is supported with straw men about the particulars of mockingbirds and vikings.
- yters 17y agoSo you are saying unless we can empirically determine otherwise, we should always assume the worse?
- ljlolel 17y agoA northern passage connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific would be a huge boon to international trade. Canada is already posturing itself to control a possible major new trade route.
- conflux0 17y agoYeah that is true and addition to what you said arctic oil reserves would also be more accessible. But I still think that the damages to coastal economies such as the Netherlands from flooding would outweigh the benefits. My main point though was that the reasoning that the guy was using, a single example of anecdotal evidence, made me a little uncomfortable. Aside from that I think the other points he made were thoughtful.
- slackerIII 17y agoJust out of curiosity, how do you compare those 2 items( Benefits to global trade/oil reserves vs damage to the Netherlands)? Do you have some expertise in the area, or is that just a hunch?
- Retric 17y agoThe several orders of magnitude difference between the value of stuff built near sea level vs the cost of global trade suggest one will not pay for the other. But there are more in depth analysis out there.
- slackerIII 17y agoHumanity has frequently built dams/drainage systems for several orders of magnitude less money than the value of the items protected by the dam/ drainage systems.
- Retric 17y agoYou need to add in failures, like the flooding of the new york subway system, and Katrina etc. Over time we don't keep things 99.9% safe over 100 years so it's not actually several orders of magnitude cheaper. Which is part of why I suggest you read a real analysis of the costs of sea level rise in 1 foot increments.
- webwright 17y agoI think he could've said that better. IMO,the point he was trying to make with the Erik the Red stuff is that climate change tends top open doors as much as it closes them. The megafauna that went extinct made room for other species. Warming can be disastrous for some latitudes and a boon for others. He wasn't saying that warming is a wonderful thing-- he was saying that it's more complex than that, and pointing out one example.
- halo 17y agoI believe the argument is supposed to counter the prevalent viewpoint that global warming is automatically a bad thing that will cause huge catastrophes without critically examining these claims. This doesn't automatically follow, and that it even may actually have some unexpected positive impacts. It's not a simplistic case of climate change solely being 'bad'. In my view, the global warming "debate" ultimately comes down to three core questions: 1. How large is the effect of global warming? 2. What effect will this have on the planet and its inhabitants? 3. What is the correct, proportional, response? As you get further down the question becomes broader, more complex and more difficult to answer as it's reliant on the answers to the ones above. One extreme is that the effect will be huge, it will have a devastating effect and threaten the human race, and so the proportional response is to focus and invest an almost infinite amount of resource on global warming as a threat. The other extreme is that the effect is marginal, it will do little to change the planet, therefore few-to-no resources should be dedicated to it. But there's actually a huge, largely forgotten, middle ground. What if the effect is quite large, but the effect is largely changing worldwide weather cycles, so the best investment is to attempt to limit against further climate change and divert resources towards the humanitarian aspect and industrial projects to mitigate the problems instead, while watching and re-evaluating how these things progress to get a better picture of the true scale of the problem? This seems the pragmatic 'solution' that the real word politicians are trying to take, but you don't hear much about it compared to the more extreme viewpoints, not least because it doesn't make for as good headlines as 'the destruction of the world'.