
Scientists have signed the largest-ever warning about Earth’s destruction - endswapper
https://qz.com/1128362/15000-scientists-just-signed-the-largest-ever-warning-about-earths-destruction/
======
dzdt
If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most
effective place to spend money?

My guess is: education for girls in Africa.

Why? Carbon emmissions per year come down to

(energy use per person per year) _(carbon emitted per unit energy)_ (number of
people).

In developed nations, all of these terms are stable or declining. In many
developing nations, and Africa in particular, population growth is still
exponential. Relatively small changes in the exponent of that growth have huge
impacts on future carbon emission.

The pattern of decreasing fertility rate as modern societies develop is called
"demographic transition". One of the biggest factors driving demographic
transition is increased education levels for girls.

So to get the biggest multiplier on future carbon emmissions, look for the
fastest growing term of the equation (population); look where it is growing
the fastest (sub-saharan Africa), and look for the best way to reduce that
growth (education for girls.)

[1] [https://www.wu.ac.at/en/press/press-releases/press-
releases-...](https://www.wu.ac.at/en/press/press-releases/press-releases-
details/detail/from-an-aging-to-an-exploding-population-education-will-decide-
humanitys-future/)

~~~
jimrandomh
This depends heavily on technological forecasting. There's a decent chance
that, by the time those countries reach the level of development where their
carbon footprint is a serious concern, they'll have skipped over fossil fuels
and gone to solar, similar to how they skipped wired telephony and went to
cell phones.

(Of course, education in poor countries is beneficial and worthwhile
regardless. But if you have to decide between investments in education or
public health in a poor country, I've gotten the impression there's lower-
hanging fruit in public health.)

~~~
Apes
A country with a 3-4% growth rate is doubling its population about every 20
years.

For that country's carbon footprint to just remain stable, they will have to
halve the amount of carbon emissions per person every 20 years.

This means that these countries will need to completely replace their
infrastructure with technology and processes that are twice as efficient every
20 years, just to keep their carbon emissions stable.

I just don't see any way for technology and infrastructure to outpace
population growth that fast.

Most realistically with population growth this high, there is probably going
to be an explosion of carbon emissions regardless of how much green technology
is rolled out in parallel.

------
redleggedfrog
The article says, "Earth's destruction" but it doesn't really mean that. It's
more about the extinction of humans and other life.

How quaint. I have a sneaking suspicion that long after we've choked ourselves
out of existence there will still be plenty of life flourishing. Nature will
find a way without us. We'll just be a little nasty blip on the geological
scale of time.

~~~
badosu
Could not resist mentioning "Save the planet" from Geroge Carlin:

 _The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit,
Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for
that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and
we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end
biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off
like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s
doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from
volcanic ash. How the planet’s doin’. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask
those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under
thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the
planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their
homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in
the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after
we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it
does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the
earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well,
the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus
plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came
out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its
children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it
in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it,
needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are
we here?” “Plastic, assholes.”_

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c)

~~~
pdfernhout
For something related, see "A letter from Gaia to humanity on the joy of
expectation" I put in another reply below.

------
orthecreedence
If the scientists don't convince people, I hope the massive droughts in some
places, flooding in others, superstorms, and other massive weather pattern
shifts will.

In the US, there's still a large group of people (or maybe just a vocal group)
that cover their ears and won't listen to anything climate-change related,
even in the highest places of our government.

I hope a healthy dose of "this is what climate change looks like" will scare
people into believing. Even if you don't want to believe that humans are the
cause, we still need to _do_ something about it, and fast (something besides
blaming everything on homosexuals).

~~~
the_gastropod
Convincing people this is real is only the tiniest first step. Even amongst
über-liberals who fully acknowledge climate change is real—and that we're
causing it—they're still eating their steak dinners, driving their cars,
drinking bottled water, and flying to vacation in far-away lands. Until we
each do our tiny parts of reducing our consumption, Earth's temperature will
continue its steady march upward.

Getting political consensus here would be nice. But individuals can lead by
example by living more sustainable lives.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
The causes of the problem are not evenly distributed. I could eat steak
dinners for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and not contribute 1% of some awful
industrial-scale disasters.

If I have the personal will to devote an hour a week or $20 of my budget to
sustainability, that energy is inordinately more effective when spent
pressuring my boss to upgrade our fleet of derelict 4 mpg coal-rollers that do
hundreds of miles a week, or writing a letter to my congressman to tryto
convince him that global warming isn't a scam, rather than enduring the
inconvenience of carpooling so that between my wife's 25mpg and my 30 mpg cars
we can save 30 miles a week.

I can contribute a tiny part through personal life changes, or a big part
through advocacy, with the same effort.

------
woodandsteel
It's frustrating that no matter how strong the evidence, a large proportion of
Americans insist there is nothing to worry about.

I have thought a lot about this and come to the conclusion it is to a great
extent due to theological beliefs. A large proportion of Americans are
evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, and
furthermore believe that the Bible says that unregulated free market
capitalism is the right economic system.

So when scientists claim that unregulated capitalism is causing damage to the
world that in turn is harmful to the human race, these people assume that this
claim is wrong and the scientists are really atheists trying to undermine
Biblical religion.

As for the libertarians and conservatives who just make scientific arguments,
it seems to me they are assuming that the Earth was created such that
unregulated capitalism can't possibly harm it,at least not in a way that would
harm humans, no matter what new technologies corporations introduce, and on
how large a scale. So they have a sort of implicit theology.

------
scooby2018
This is great. Their link to the 15000 signatures is broken. Hard to verify
what type of "scientists" these are.

"Supplementary data are available at BIOSCI online including supplemental file
1 and supplemental file 2 (full list of all 15,364 signatories)."
[https://academic.oup.com/biosci/article-
lookup/doi/10.1093/b...](https://academic.oup.com/biosci/article-
lookup/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125#supplementary-data)

------
RickJWag
This will again go without noticeable action.

Why? Because nobody cares enough (or believes deeply enough) to make radical
lifestyle changes.

Al Gore still have several huge houses. Leanardo DiCaprio still takes solo jet
trips across the ocean. The richest people (of all political persuasions)
continue to live lives that don't reflect an austere lifestyle at all.

Why should anyone make sacrifices if nobody else does?

------
fyrstenberg
So, a mere 0.14% (!) of the approximate 11 million scientists has signed. Lets
be honest here: not a whole lot really...

(ps: down-voting this post doesn't change this fact...)

~~~
mojomark
> of the approximate 11 million scientists has signed....

A.) Is there a citation that accompanies your statistic?

B.) Does this number account for the type of scientist? Are you lumping non-
Earth scientists (say, fiber optic researchers) in with your assesment that
15K is not a large number?

~~~
fyrstenberg
A) Digest of Education Statistics,
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables_3.asp#Ch3aSub...](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables_3.asp#Ch3aSub4)
(although, the specific table has since been removed, reason unknown).

B) I just like to point out the hypocrisy (ref. OISM where 32,000 scientists
where considering a "not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority"
([https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-
Project.htm](https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm),
together will all the left-leaning media's "breakdown" of this petition).

UN representative Christina Figueres has already stated in Brussel a couple of
years ago that "global warming" has nothing to do with climate, but economy
(i.e. "anti-capitalism"):
[https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-
change...](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-
tool-to-destroy-capitalism/)

And as a reminder: consensus !== science.

~~~
golem14
B) if you follow the links, you can find the supplementary data with the
complete list of people who signed:

[https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/bios...](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229)

the OSIM data is less informative, would be interesting to compare
trustworthiness:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccr...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf)

------
vita17
15,000 doesn’t sound like many. What’s the p-value?

------
riot504
Best way to fight climate change, eliminate all vaccines. The human population
will plummet thus ensuring we have reduced the amount of waste. Human remains
can help bring nutrients back to the soil. Other species will be able to
repopulate naturally.

This won't happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain
technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the
latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping
containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.

Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don't know and I don't really
care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I
drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store
them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3
years, and the prior to that I didn't have one. Have one TV in my house and a
record player.

Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth
will prosper long after we are gone.

~~~
programmarchy
No vaccines, great idea. You first.

~~~
riot504
You can continue researching to ensure everyone lives as long as possible or
let nature naturally take its course.

------
cjslep
The enabler in the USA for continuing to believe that there is no link between
pollution emissions and more pronounced extreme weather is the lack of
education surrounding statistics and its analysis.

At this point I just ask what scientific statistic a person would need to hear
in order to consider changing their mind. Unfortunately, I haven't ever gotten
an informative reply indicating knowledge of the field, and am still open to
hearing what exactly it would be.

Edit: Granted, at this point, most people on both sides seem to have given up
learning about the fundamental literature driving this debate. See John
Oliver's "It Just F __*ing Is " on his recent show.

~~~
orthecreedence
Typical exchange:

"Climate change is bullshit! I demand to see evidence of it actually
occurring!"

<is presented volumes of data>

"I don't recognize these sources! These were payed for by liberal media! I
demand to see real data!"

Rinse and repeat.

~~~
powertower
If you want to be correct, its more like _" we've looked at your model and
talked to the people that created it, and everyone that worked on it agrees
that the debate is being driven by politics rather than science. We've found
that emissions of the sun are responsible for 98% of the current climate
change, that carbon is the smallest factor in the other 2%, and you are being
set up for a global taxation system that is designed to establish control over
everyone under a false premise."_

~~~
javajosh
That's a (much) better argument than the "God wouldn't let this happen" straw-
man often argued against by climate change activists. The "Climategate" emails
make it particularly compelling. The air of corruption and decay around
academia and academic publishing in particular have legitimately eroded trust
in those institutions, and thanks to the nature of climate change the data is
highly indirect and difficult to independently verify (compare the discovery
of climate change to the discovery of Saturn's moons, or the ideal gas law!)

Truth is, although I strongly tend to believe climate change claims, I still
feel some strong skepticism. I know my way around math, statistics, chemistry,
and physics, but I couldn't tell you what measurements you actually can _do_
to support climate change assertions. How do you measure the average
temperature of a region, let alone the world, over a long period of time?!
I've always felt uneasy about archeologists drawing conclusions from a _single
bone fragment_ , or even cosmologists drawing enormously long chains of
conclusions from _star spectra_ , but in those cases a) the measurement itself
is obvious, b) the reasoning is obvious (even if you disagree with it) and c)
it doesn't really matter all that much. Climate change, though, suffers from
a) measurements that aren't obvious, b)reasoning that isn't obvious, and c) is
incredibly important and we can't get it wrong. And moreover, if you express
these doubts, the vast majority of climate change activists will just get
angry with you and either stop talking to you at all, or point to letters with
lots of eminent signatories saying, "it all makes sense to us, the evidence is
overwhelming, we're really smart, so trust us."

 _Argument from authority isn 't good enough, and the intuitive argument isn't
good enough, either_. Yes, we live in a thin skin of biosphere and we are
releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at a huge rate in absolute terms. But I
don't have an intuition about the _relative_ rate, especially when compared to
natural processes (which are vast). We cut down forests at a prodigious rate,
which hurts capture, but I don't have an intuition about the amount of this
either. I would _love it_ if someone took these concerns seriously and wrote a
book about it.

(For the record, I think there are other "good enough" reasons to change our
behavior. Rampant consumerism isn't good for people or the planet in more
obvious, directly measurable ways. Plus, even if the odds are low for a global
catastrophe, it is better to be safe than sorry.)

~~~
mturmon
In theory, rational skeptics should be convinced by reading things like the
IPCC AR5 ([https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf) \- pdf), or the even more recent NCA
([https://science2017.globalchange.gov](https://science2017.globalchange.gov)).

Alas, many skeptics, even on HN, prefer to make general armchair-physics
arguments despite the information already out there, condensed and edited, and
backed by peer review and hundreds of citations into the literature.

Annoyingly, sometimes these skeptics even then complain that there is not
enough information to really be sure, as if they have looked.

~~~
javajosh
The link lacks answers to the basic, first-order questions I've asked
regarding methods, particularly methods that yield historical background to
currently observed phenomena. Also, your attitude of contempt, and continued
reliance and argument from authority, shows weakness. After all, if you really
knew what you were talking about, the answers to my questions should be easy.

~~~
mturmon
Which link lacks this material?

