Hacker News Reader

> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening

Not now, but the official position of, say, the Heritage Foundation has always been the most do-nothing position that they might hope much of the public would accept. As the evidence mounts they have to back off a bit. Let's take a quick trip back in time:

Heritage Foundation in 2010: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...

First sentence of abstract: "The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus." (This was not true then any more than it is now, of course.)

Heritage Foundation in 2001: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/warming-the-trut...

"The human influence on global climate change is small and will be slow to develop." (This was not mainstream science then any more than it is now, of course.)

Heritage Foundation in 1998: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/no-evidence-...

Title: "No evidence for global warming".

Heritage Foundation in 1992: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/guide-the-global...

"Question #1: Is the Earth warming as a result of human-caused greenhouse gases or because of natural phenomena? [...] The existing scientific evidence does not give clear answers to these questions."

Regarding your earlier citations, the consensus for anthropogenic climate change is much more recent than you seem to assume. The IPCC was not formed until 1988. Even as of the 1995 report, the conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of observed warming was tepid:

> An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."[12]

It wasn’t until 2001 that IPCC took a definitive position that human influence would be the dominant effect on warming going forward: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.... (pages 9-11). In that same report, the IPCC took a much milder view on whether human influence had been the dominant contributor to date. They assert that a human “signal” is detectable, but do not assert that the warming to date had primarily resulted from human activity. They also note no impact on, for example, the extent of sea ice. The 2001 Heritage article you posted is probably an optimistic reading of the 2001 IPCC report, but not an unreasonable one.

Of course they’re not going to be out front embracing the impact of climate change. But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism.

How do you defend the article from 2010:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...

Or the "Climate Change Realities" section from this 2013 article [1]. Let me quote a sentence from it:

> Although there is a near unanimous consensus that the earth has warmed, no consensus exists regarding climate sensitivity, the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change, whether global warming is a problem or a benefit, or how current temperatures fit into the broader climate context.

No consensus on the role of CO2, or whether global warming is a problem or benefit... Words fail me.

[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-...

> the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change

Is CO2 responsible for about 50% of warming since 1850? Or 100%? or more than 100%, but natural variations have masked part of the warming we would have seen?

> whether global warming is a problem or a benefit

Is the warming we've had since 1850 primarily a problem or a benefit (hint: most lay people would say problem, but it has been overwhelmingly beneficial).

> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening.

This is a flat-out false representation. The Heritage Foundation has sown the seeds of denialism many times.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-... (section titled "climate change realities")

https://www.desmogblog.com/heritage-foundation

Some of the problematic articles are from years ago, you say. Well, where is the retraction? The damage of denialism (and their credibility) has already been done... Redemption would not be trivial.

...and if it does happen, they say [1], worst case estimate is 7 F increase in the global average temperature. Dubai is about 35 F above the global average, and they do fine by using their abundant fossil fuels to power air conditioners. A globalized market in cheap fossil fuels will let other countries do that so 7 F is nothing to worry about.

[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...

Yeah, no biggie, let's just run the air conditioning 24/7/365 for 10 billion people. And it's not like we should expect any other severe worldwide impacts from the rising temperatures, so we can all be relieved about that.

Currently more energy is used for heating than for refrigeration.

There is your answer courtesy of the OECD a month or so back: https://youtu.be/vwwvZ8g5eHE

There’s the distinct possibility of 8c change by 2100 under business as usual. 8c means palm trees at the arctic and no clouds ever forming. If you think that’s a tenable position for life then you’re fully on the denier side.

That’s not a business as usual scenario: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...

> The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century.

Also, it’s clearly a “tenable position for life” because temperatures were that high as recently as 55 million years ago, and mammals survived: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150914-when-global-warming-...

When global temperatures were that high, the change happened gradually over many millions of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt.

Here's the last 22000 years of climate change in comic form to illustrate the point. https://xkcd.com/1732/

"Tenable for life" is not the same as "tenable for human life"

Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.

Why do people keep saying this? We're around only for a couple million years if you count australopithecus. And during that time there were possibly several periods with less than 100k individuals. Going from 7B to 100k would be pretty close to extinction. 0.00143%

The question is can we keep industrial scale food production going? Can we get people enough clean water?

People say that because of technology.

Name another species that can create its own energy, create new materials and cure diseases.

We create our own energy? How? Ever heard of Thermodynamics?

This is where we’re feeling the real harm of fossil fuels, I think. We quickly moved from traditional energy levels to astronomically more energy just by burning oil and coal. We can lug around freight with relatively small amounts of fuel. We could do even more astronomical feats with nuclear fission, but introduced the technology to ourselves by blowing up two of our cities. So it’s associated with mass death meanwhile the death associated with pollution and fossil fuels are less visible.

Alright, energy sources if you want to be pedantic.

People only really have the kind of technology I think you're referring to if they're lucky enough to be born into a more economically developed country. Unfortunately, it's the less economically developed countries that are going to bear the brunt of climate change, being already under stress and relying heavily on climate-sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture).

The ones who have contributed the least to climate change will almost certainly suffer the most -- this isn't a matter of whether or not our species will survive, it's a matter of injustice.

People also aren’t adaptable to the ocean rising above their nation and swallowing their land below the oceans waves. The projected effects from each degree c of change are not linear. But the IPCC report assumed linear effects - 1% gdp per degree c change, according to a talk someone else posted. That’s highly unlikely. At one projection the earth may only be able to carry 1 billion people but be projected to have a gdp only 4-8% lower than today. Any economist worth their salt should be able to tell you that losing 6/7ths of humanity is going to shrink the global economy by something way, way higher. It probably doesn’t even make quite the same relevance to discuss global gdp in that world.

I don't think even RCP8.5 would be anywhere near enough to hit 8°C warming by 2100 anyway. Pretty sure that's way outside the range of all plausible models.

There have been several points in time where the earth was on average 8° higher.

Furthermore your claim on "clouds will never form" is plainly wrong, and more likely than not, the opposite of what actually happens in a 8° hotter earth.

Climate change is happening, no real doubt about that, but the mindless apocalyptic claims that are parroted around need to stop, because not only are they wrong, but they also decrease the credibility of actual legitimate claims.

Why are they wrong?

The Uninhabitable Earth By David Wallace-Wells is my source for this. He’s got scientific references for what I wrote.

Oh. That explains it. Apparently his writing has been publicly criticized by such well-known climate change deniers as Michael Mann for being doom-mongering that misrepresents the science.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water just because you think you’re comfortable with the relative possibilities.

At least in part because that’s not what the IPCC is projecting. It’s telling that nobody ever references the work of the IPCC on expected economic impacts of climate change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap...

> For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.

That is bullshit from our dear Nordhaus, Nobel Price in now fully discredited Economics. More debunking here: https://youtu.be/vwwvZ8g5eHE

Thank you for posting that. Something sure seemed off between what I’ve heard as reasonable models of climate changes nonlinear reality versus the theories expanded here.

>There have been several points in time where the earth was on average 8° higher.

There also have been several points in time where the earth was experiencing mass extinctions and survived those just fine.

There is a destinct possibility of an astroid hitting earth wiping out most humans. Yet we still dont monitor 100% and put all our effort into making sure that doesent happen. If you think thats a tenable position you are on the denier side.

Seems to be a very counterproductive way of discussing this.

"Their position is, basically, the potential risks of climate change are overstated and extreme solutions are not worth the cost."

Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. I don't see how you can interpret it any differently. In your own words they are denying the risk of climate change.

Saying that climate change is happening, but that it is not a risk, is the same thing as saying that climate change is not happening. They're just moving goal posts and being mealy mouthed.

Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates.

Thats what they mean.

When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.

So mind reading is your argument?

I'm saying that the arguments are ideologically motivated and are not put forth for their own merits.

You are questioning their motives not actually engaging in the argument.

Of course the arguments are ideologically motivated. Look at the left wing of the climate change movement, which has incorporated all sorts of social justice and primitivism elements into climate change. (Rejecting nuclear power, rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes, emphasizing “indigenous technology,” etc.) Look how the Green New Deal is being pitched as a reincarnation of the labor movement, a jobs program, and a reshaping of capitalist systems, as opposed to being directed solely to addressing climate change. Climate change is a huge ideological point for everyone.

It's not weird that climate change solutions are left wing if the right wing is still in denial.

I personally think a carbon fee is the best solution but I had to go back and retype tax as fee as that well has been so thoroughly poisoned by people that the average Republican voter think the free market solution is actually a cunning plan to introduce communism.

> Rejecting nuclear power

Plenty of people reject nuclear power. It's not just "the left wing of the climate change movement". "Until 2012, no U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI."[1]

> rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes

Who's doing that? I've never heard of this. Is this a universally and deeply held opinion among "the left"? Most people I know are in the "let's do something if it's going to work" boat. The other side isn't even at the "let's do something" point yet.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Eff...

> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change.

So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?

That's not what they said, but also, what is your point?

The basic facts are:

1. The earth is warming rapidly.

2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause.

3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered.

4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage.

These points seem pretty non-negotiable to me.

(3) is certainly debatable. If you read the actual contents of the IPCC forecasts it doesn't seem anything close to the end of the world. We're not turning the planet into Venus and we're not going to have to abandon Manhattan. Given a realistic climate change cost assessment, the >90 trillion dollar proposals like the Green New Deal can certainly come out looking like a bad deal.

By itself, a 6 foot increase in sea-level would affect hundreds of millions of people. I believe that is on the high-end of predictions for 2100 if we continue to fail to take serious action, so yes, it may not be that bad. But it's just one example.

We can also look at the more modest predictions of a 2 to 3 foot sea-level increase. That would still throw the lives of dozens of millions of people into complete chaos. Not to mention the disruption to the economic systems in these coastal areas, and those that flow through those areas.

And this isn't even discussing the actual temperature increases, agricultural issues, floods / droughts, and so on.

The author posts his link at the bottom, I am sure he would appreciate your point, as he may include an addendum. Contact him!

To a 2013 article? (HN headline should include 2013)

That's a distinction without a difference. Judge the results, not the (stated) intent.

The way I see it is fighting with the same weapons, deception if it may since this is what climate change deniers do. It is not hard to see some sort of deception on both sides of this issue

Deception on both sides is a failing strategy. A big benefit of the moral high ground is having the high ground. If morals lack on both sides then it is difficult to convince people with evidence, I think.

> The IPCC’s own estimates of the business as usual scenario show modest economic impacts even under a business as usual scenario out to 2100.

Is that the impact that occurs up to 2100, or the total future impact that will be unavoidable if we do business as usual until 2100? This sounds a lot like you are saying "if we continue business as usual, the world won't be destroyed before 2100", which might well mean "but it's completely impossible to escape complete destruction until 2150 then".