
Global Warming Delusions - Rod
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258265537661384.html
======
dublinclontarf
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I
have come across in such a long time.

No fear mongering about a lack of action.

No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our
economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes).

Just so... reasonable.

~~~
conflux0
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
A 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
Well, 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.

~~~
calambrac
There 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.

~~~
robotrout
It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your
function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that
is the height of arrogance.

You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with
hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he
falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm
a bastard.

You say I should spend $1000 as my share of the cost to paint a picture of a
snow capped mountain on the ugly building next door. Everybody in the
neighborhood will benefit from having such a beautiful mural, so what is my
problem with coughing up the money? I would probably just waste it on fixing
the transmission and brakes on my car anyway.

It is not your resources that you are spending. It is MY resources you are
spending. I choose to donate them to drilling wells for waterless villages in
Africa. Who are you to tell me that I'm a bastard for wanting to do that
instead of your project?

Don't give me this moralistic sermon about greedy people demanding proof of a
problem before coughing up the funds to fix it, when they should just smile
and give the funds because it's "a good thing anyway".

I reject this 100 times more than I reject somebody who is just too lazy to
learn the true facts of the issue. Give me people honestly trying to reach an
intellectual meeting of the minds any day over this sort of moralistic
bullying.

~~~
calambrac
Whoa, dude. Calm down.

First: in some things, it is for society to decide how you spend your
resources. For instance, you can't spend them on blowing up random buildings.
How is limiting your emissions qualitatively different?

Second: when the fuck did I say anything about spending $250k to pad your kids
walls, or $1k to buy a fucking mural? Take your hyperbole back to reddit,
please.

Third: what moralistic bullying are you talking about? When I suggested it
might be a cynical response from people who benefit from the current state of
things? You _really_ don't think there are people for whom that's true? I
admit I probably could have picked a better phrase than "I wonder", but
seriously, your response is way out of band.

~~~
robotrout
First, I'd like to note, that the whole broken-windows theory is alive and
well. I said bastard, you said fuck. I bet you wouldn't have said it, if I
hadn't said bastard. That's not anything more than an observation about humans
in general, it's not meant as anything more.

In regards to your protest at the level of my response. My response is
appropriate, but it is, indeed, non-typical. I purposely chose to take off the
gloves here, rather than water down my speech because the watered down speech
that is so typically used in these kinds of discussions has confused you and
many others.

Just like abstraction in software, much of our society abstracts away the
really important bits. Just like in software, this can be abused.

Anytime you calmly and rationally talk about adding taxes to do this program
or that program, you need to remember that there are men with guns that will
deprive people of their lives or their liberty unless they comply. Too often,
you forget that because it's abstracted away by the system we have. I feel
that such a profound imposition of your will over mine is indeed cause for
less watered down speech than usually used. If that made you uncomfortable,
than I'm happy about that. That was it's intent.

When you then go on to say that you want to use that awesome power regardless
of whether or not the original catalyst is a valid one, because "it's a good
idea", I have to do what I can to get through to you how dangerous that sort
of thinking is.

~~~
frig
On the other hand, there are people who will dump toxic waste into my
groundwater and my air unless the men with guns are willing to deprive them of
life or liberty for failure to cease said dumping.

Any time you calmly and rationally keep asking for more and more evidence that
the toxic waste you're poisoning my kids' water and air with isn't all that
bad, or is a net benefit for humanity even if my kids seem ever-the-more
sickly for it you're causing irreparable harm.

I feel such a profound imposition of your will -- convince me I'm not
poisoning you! -- over mine is something that doesn't deserve polite speech
and I don't care if it makes you uncomfortable.

This is really the conflict that's going to play out all over the next
century, regardless of how climate-change specifically plays out:

\- libertarian-minded types like to think we live in a world where it's
possible to swing a fist without hitting someone's face

\- if that world ever really existed, it's gone now: anytime you light a fire
you're blowing smoke in my face

It's the difference between the morality of the home and the morality of the
bus station:

\- in your home you're surrounded by walls and only people who want to be
there (usually) are present, so do as you wish

\- in the bus station you're cheek-by-jowl with hundreds to thousands of other
people, and the only thing that makes it bearable is a shared belief in
restraint

The abstraction of "your resources" is just another leaky abstraction:

\- there's no platonic book of property titles; you can't really call God on
the phone and confirm that "your resources" are actually "yours, to do with as
you wish"

\- you can't really (as an individual) exert enough force to _make_ everyone
respect your "ownership" over "your resources"; the fact that you can act as
though they're unambiguously yours depends on the willingness of hundreds of
millions of people to leave you and "your resources" alone

\- even if everyone agrees "your resources" are yours, you -- and your
resources -- are not off in some private pocket universe when you use your
resources; you -- and your resources -- are embedded in the same material
reality everyone else is, and every action you take -- including any use you
make of your resources -- will impact other people

\- it's not realistic to expect people to sit idly by if you and your use of
"your resources" are harming them; since "your resources" staying "your
resources" depends on everyone else being willing to leave you alone, it's not
smart to use "your resources" in a way that blows smoke in their face or
pisses in their drinking water

\- historically people have been more willing to treat certain resource usages
as "not harming them" (eg: smokestacks, dumping industrial byproducts into
riverwater, etc.); this is less and less true with time, and there's no sign
of a slowdown in that trend

\- every time so far that a particular set of negative environmental
externalities has been identified the producers of that externality have
either voluntarily agreed to cut back, some kind of nominal regulation (looks
good, may not actually do anything) has been imposed, or some actually-strong
regulation has been put in place; it's obvious which way the wind is blowing,
here

Regardless of how "climate change" pans out, this is the future:

\- on the one side, people who strongly believe they're being directly harmed
by actions you're taking; any calm, rational request for evidence that your
actions are actually harmful is asking for them to endure more harm, and to
what end? Why does your claim on "your resources" -- which ultimately depends
upon their consent, as you yourself can't do squat to hold onto "your
resources" should they lift that consent -- trump their well being? What
justifies such self-sacrifice? Why would it ever be _your place_ to tell me
how much smoke in my face I ought to be willing to put up with?

\- on the other side, people taking actions they've been taking in the past
will want to continue taking them. Sometimes they will probably have a
reasonable case for continuing to take those actions, and sometimes they
won't; in any case, they're at a disadvantage:

\--- direct appeals to the fact that you're using "your resources" aren't
going to resonate with your accusers (even if they rouse sympathy in those who
fear they're next); not only are "your resources" only "yours" until the
people you're arguing with decide they aren't, but you're insisting on
upholding an abstraction that's looking ever-the-more leaky

\--- direct appeals to how much harm you're causing (or not) are also going to
fall flat; it's not really your place to tell other people how much harm you
can cause them before they have a right to complain, and so for this to work
at all you need to appeal to some kind of mutually-accepted arbiter; that
mutually-accepted arbiter is going to be ultimately more beholden to everyone-
else-but-you (you are one, they are many)

I'd like to as much as possible preserve the notion of "your resources" and
some kind of private sphere in which one can act freely (without looking over
one's shoulder) but that's not going to happen if you take the abstraction for
granted, and ignore the reality (what you're asking for is leeway and the
presumption from other parties that you're not harming them enough for them to
take action...that's an exceedingly fragile base).

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Sorry for the interjection, but it seems you guys are almost breaking out in
reasonableness.

 _On the other hand, there are people who will dump toxic waste into my
groundwater and my air unless the men with guns are willing to deprive them of
life or liberty for failure to cease said dumping._

And if you define a ton of arsenic as "toxic waste" I don't think anybody
would argue with you about the need for protection from your neighbor's
actions.

But if you define a few parts per billion, or something that has a .01% chance
of causing my death from cancer, or something that the community is currently
hysterical about, (such as second-hand smoke) then I think we do have a
problem.

There's plenty of room for reasonable thinking in the middle of the road here.
The problem is that the middle of the road keeps moving. Nobody used to care
if you dumped used motor oil in your backyard. Or if you smoked in public. Or
if your lawn mower spewed smoke. The goalposts keep moving. This trend cannot
continue indefinitely.

There is some reasonable middle ground. In my opinion, however, we've crossed
that middle ground a long time ago. Decisions about what private property
rights to infringe on are not made any more based on scientific, reproducible
cause-and-effect principles that have a high degree of causing me harm (And
I'll stick with my .01% number for this discussion). Instead the ground keeps
changing based on current politics.

Private property should not be based on political whims -- that's the whole
point of the Bill of Rights: that some principles have been proven to be the
bedrock of successful societies. It's no more debatable than whether 1+1=2

I can't emphasize enough that the notion of private property is critical for
successful societies. It's a lesson history shows us very clearly. My
ownership of something does not depend on my fellow citizens allowing me to
own it. Certain principles are innate, endowed by our creator, whatever-your-
favorite-language. Inviolate. It's the entire basis of western society. I'm
not trying to argue at extremes again -- obviously I can't dump a ton of
arsenic in my backyard. But to believe that it's natural for global health
concerns to intrude more and more on personal property is to say that people
are going to stop being people at some point and simply be cells performing in
a larger organism. I don't see that happening any time soon. The human animal
simply won't fit into the little box that you'd like them to fit into.

~~~
frig
Oh, agreed -- I'd like to see the notion of "private property" well protected
moving forward. I just think the way its strongest advocates operate is going
to do much more harm than good (in, eg, the same way the Republicans slagging
every last Democratic policy proposal with "that's socialism" is doing plenty
to make socialism look harmless and appealing in the modern era).

But, you have to be realistic:

\- if you accept a libertarian notion of self-ownership, then it follows that,
eg, I ought nought to have you blow smoke in my face unless i consent to it
(b/c you're tampering with my property, no)?

\- now, as a practical matter people agree to overlook certain things (eg:
your campfire is infinitesimally smokifying my air here back in town, but it's
so negligible that I ought not to care about it; very literally the stress of
worrying about it is worse for me than your smoke is)

\- it'd be nice if you can adopt a universal standard for when your
(infinitesimal) actions are something I _have_ to ignore

\- but unless you _already have_ that agreement you're back into coercing
people; it does seem useful to you, I'm sure, to think that "since I've
scientifically shown that my blowing smoke in your face doesn't actually harm
you, so I'm going to keep doing it", but now you're not that far removed
intellectually from eg eminent domain "I've demonstrated that demolishing your
home in order to finish this expressway is manifestly for the economic benefit
of the entire city -- including you -- so even though normally I'd like to
respect your property rights in this patch of land today I say 'tough luck!'"

\- this is why the boundaries of private property are always ultimately a
political problem: usually people are looking out for their own interest, as
they choose to define it; to get someone to deliberately _sacrifice_ their own
perceived self-interest requires either force or politics; force works but is
undesirable and doesn't scale, either, so you're left with politics

This is where the folk libertarianism (along with any _naive_ or _simplistic_
approach to being pro-property-rights) is going to flounder in the new
century, if present trends continue:

\- you can't pretend your actions "don't effect other people until they do";
the reality is that "your actions effect everyone else, but sometimes
(usually, even) everyone else agrees to pretend as if they don't"

\- you look like a hypocrite if you on the one hand want to maintain absolute
say over how you use your own resources but on the other hand want to force
other people to accept your decisions about which uses of their property
(their bodies, their air, etc.) they need to just man up and take; you also
look stupid if you can't see this point

\- you also look politically and rhetorically dumb when you speak casually
about what risk-of-harm to others you're comfortable ignoring (and would
expect other people to ignore); it's rather obvious that, eg, DanielBMarkham
is fine with, say, some action of his having a .001% odds of giving his
neighor's kid asthma (picking at random) -- DanielBMarkham is not his
neighbor's kid, after all -- but step outside the space of just "thinking in
words" and you'll see why that's not a winning pose (it's made worse by the
way that risk-of-harm is low-and-diffuse but harm is typically severe-and-
concentrated).

What I'm trying to drive home is that everything you've said is valid, but
you're not going to change minds with that argument (at most you'll make
people aware of a particular danger if you carry something to its logical
extreme).

I think the best long-term approach is to focus more on design and
infrastructure (eg: intelligent garbage processing, products designed from
start-to-finish to neatly decompose into recyclable components -- this is
called "reverse logistics", fyi) rather than trying to directly win the
political war over where the lines ought to be drawn.

If you can get to where people can continue doing what they do now but with
far less externality production, then you will easily be able to keep the
lines drawn mostly where you'd want them to be (at least for most actors).

The issue here is that to get to where it's safe to be mindless again is not
going to happen promptly (if at all) without some kind of directed regulatory
push; that is not only nontrivial -- and dangerous -- but also unlikely
barring some other political shifts.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I think the discussion bifurcates here between two camps: the _pragmatic_
camp, which describes the best way to reach various goals, and the
_principles_ camp, which describe reality (as they see it) whether or not
goals are reached or not.

Both prongs of this discussion have serious flaws. If you try to act only
pragmatically (convincing your fellow citizen that a little chaos is necessary
for the growth of the larger state) then progress, or the state of the
argument, is completely dependent on your powers of persuasion and the current
fight/mindset of your fellow citizen. That fails over time because _creating
limits are discussed at a much higher ratio than reducing them_. I'd have to
have a persuasive power of about 100:1 in order just to maintain the status
quo.

If, as I do, you believe there are some fundamental biological principles at
play, then it really doesn't matter anyway. Either the principles are being
respected or they are not. And sadly yes, I think it probably comes down to
some sort of happy mathematical ratio. However, as you point out, arguing on
principles in a society that is fear and risk-obsessed is a non-starter. And
it's a really difficult argument to make that, while ten million people may
blow smoke in other people's face, the loss of their freedom to move and act
naturally is a greater loss than the hundred million who are annoyed with
second-hand smoke (I am not a smoker, btw). But at the end of the day the
better argument wins. That's just reality.

~~~
frig
I think we've exhausted any vein of disagreement. That said, there's one thing
I want to point out:

I think you're overestimating the extent to which there are any natural
principles that'll set in and show their hand; they're out there, but most
human behavior that actually bumps into them gets corrected pretty fast, all
things considered (a few decades, usually, between discovery and adaptation).

For most of the debates of interest there aren't really principles you can
fall back on, and even if you do there's a big "so what?", because principles
do not in and of themselves supply a valuation.

Let's stick with secondhand smoke.

Let's assume it comes out that, eg, using much-more-definitive science than
anything we currently have on the matter that there's a non-zero but seemingly
negligible increase in risk of lung cancer from second-hand smoke (say: above
some level of exposure your risk of lung cancer becomes 0.0002% instead of
.0001%).

This seems compelling, but at the end of the day it doesn't really help you
resolve the issue of "secondhand smoke regulation" (without the backing of
some state to dictate the resolution).

It might be irrational, say, for the consensus opinion to be that secondhand
smoke is worth banning even though other, unbanned activities have higher
risks, but so what? The point of "owning" something is being able to do what
you like with it without having to justify those actions to others; matters of
fact can make certain conversations more likely to go one way instead of
another but they ultimately are just dead facts on the table.

An extreme example is something like trying to build an apartment complex over
an indian burial ground; it's a pure battle of aesthetics that can't be won by
reason alone.

The "second-hand smoking" issue is only superficially different: it seems like
there's more of a scientific aspect (does second-hand smoking actually cause
harm?) but those facts only serve to inform the parties; without some
agreement on underlying outlooks (how to interpret those facts) the facts
don't do anything.

One of the commonest forms of self-delusion in internet political arguing is
to (unconsciously) assume enough about "the other side's" core beliefs and
assumptions that for them to disagree with the conclusions you've drawn would
be irrational; this isn't usually an intentional mistake, it just arises from
a failure to conceptualize other people's outlooks as differing from your own
in any fundamental way.

What I see this century holding is (sadly) a huge flux in underlying outlooks;
even when there are principles they depend on pragmatics to accomplish
anything, and failing to deal with that flux will lead to sucking at
pragmatics.

I'm out, it's been a pleasant sunday.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I am procrastinating doing necessary work by means of discussion but I'll try
to get the last word in anyway. Since I'm new to the thread.

By violating underlying principles I do NOT believe that some kind of ultimate
catastrophe will ensue. This is an optimization problem and I simply believe
there are natural asymptotes. My view of the future is one in which we define
"abnormal deviation" down to the point where we're all just homogenized
drones. In my darkest days I don't see mankind evolving into some kind of
space-faring, trans-human supermen. I see mankind turning into large lumps of
homogeneous sacks of fluid mindlessly plugged into a vast brain-masturbatory
internet. It's the long, slow, slide to stagnation. I'm not concerned with the
end of the world: I'm concerned with the end of chaotic, creative expansion.
Without underlying principles that's where we're headed. Private property and
the ensuing rights to do things that might annoy my neighbors if they lived 5
feet away is the cause of all kinds of goodness.

"because principles do not in and of themselves supply a valuation"

I think they can. I think you right to speak is greater than my desire not to
be annoyed by you -- unless I have no way to get away from you, in which case
my right of self-ownership trumps your right to speak. Principles give us all
kinds of relative valuations. Our entire system of western justice is based on
the idea that principles have relative merit to one another.

"An extreme example is something like trying to build an apartment complex
over an indian burial ground; it's a pure battle of aesthetics that can't be
won by reason alone."

Once again we're having the pragmatic versus principles discussion. I say I
shouldn't have to justify actions if they are based on principle. Do I have to
justify my freedom of speech every time I post on the internet? Of course not.
It's a given. Likewise many uses of private property were a given 50 years ago
but are not any more. Pragmatically those who make good political arguments in
a decayed democracy win more rights than others. Practically decayed
democracies do not _optimally_ support their citizens or grow and change
adequately to adapt to new circumstances. The more I have to argue to get the
same freedoms I had 50 years ago, the more time and energy I am spending just
to have the same potential people had naturally before. It's a good
observation on your part. It's just incomplete.

Thanks for the thread. Now back to work!

------
david927
The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented:
don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how
it's not so bad.

There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves
collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's
that for an anecdote.

~~~
TomOfTTB
No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to
paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the
arguments that claim it will be the end of the world.

The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to
paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The
right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright.

As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead
people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing
the reader another side exists.

~~~
cia_plant
We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last
decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think
global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-
made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that
these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are
given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad!

There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is
the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the
IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents,
and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major
point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about
every major point over the same period.

Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that
those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming
are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-
hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy
companies:

[http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-
GlobalWa...](http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-
GlobalWarming-tobacco.html)

~~~
azgolfer
Science is not done by consensus. What the hell is "climate scientist" anyway.
Perhaps you'd like to post some of the solved problems in "climate science".
Computer models of the climate are a joke. They don't even take into account
clouds.You can't make a model of a problem with thousands of free variables.
The evidence at this point is on the side of the sun causing any warming and
CO2 rising AFTER warming occurs.

------
radu_floricica
He's not alone, but the media and public somehow only listen to the other guy.

I read Collapse, by Jared Diamond - the same kind of level-headedness (or
more). Despite the title and the subject of the book there is no panic, only
clear analysis. And guess which threat he considers by far the worst? Yup,
deforestation. Pretty much everything by Jared Diamond is a good read, btw.

------
mcantelon
War is a much simpler problem than global warming, yet we can't agree its
validity or stop it. Given this, both war and global warming are probably
inevitable until evolution produces a more rational and forward-thinking
dominant species.

~~~
jpwagner
In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable
until Earth provides unlimited resources.

"Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside
momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably
inevitable until Earth is more robust.

~~~
philwelch
War is a method to divide resources, but so is trade. And those parts of the
world that trade with each other by and large do not go to war with each
other.

In fact, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of wars between
countries that believed in trade and countries that did not believe in trade:
this is called the Cold War. After this we started getting wars between
countries that were part of the global trading community and countries that
weren't, over issues that would largely go away or be resolved peaceably if
those countries joined the global trading community.

This is called "globalization", and it's what all those anarchists tend to
start riots about every time the larger countries want to have a conference
about it.

~~~
jpwagner
to paraphrase your rebuttal: Earth already has enough resources.

~~~
philwelch
It really doesn't in the long run, but it turns out you get so many more net
resources through trade anyway that even in a shortage you're better off with
trade than war.

------
quoderat
Of course, the real danger of climate change is carbon dioxide leading to the
buildup of hydrogen sulfide in the oceans (thus killing them, and about
everything on land):

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.htm)

No one seems to know about this, but it's a far more probable -- even
extremely likely threat -- given what we know right now.

Also:
[http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_...](http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_ward_qa?currentPage=all)

------
ryanwaggoner
This article is from Oct. 2007. Not saying it's irrelevant, just that I didn't
realize it at first.

------
mmphosis
Look into global ocean temperatures over the past 100 years.
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectiv...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html)

------
dfsdfsdsfdsf
Start here:
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-
here/)

------
DanielBMarkham
_At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science --
even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from
clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to
deal with our changing climate._

Absolutely

------
dejb
You've got to remember this guy is speaking from the perspective of a
biologist. To him an economic events like the like the Global Financial Crisis
are pretty much irrelevant. Even if global warming had a an effect like 50
years of GFC it wouldn't harm the world biologically but it would totally suck
to live through.

Even if the necessary relocation of many people happened in an orderly fashion
the cost would be huge. Imagine cost of abandoning most of a significant city
because the climate could no longer support the population.

------
Tichy
Interesting, although I must say I was never worried that humans would go
extinct because of global warming. Just not so keen on all the upheaval and
territory fighting that might happen along the way. But I guess in that sense
it kind of selfish to worry about global warming. Maybe the poor people in
Greenland deserve some warmer years, and I should gladly chill for their
benefit (chill because I think it would be getting colder where I live, if the
gulf stream became diverted).

------
radu_floricica
Copenhagen Consensus:
[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html)

~~~
Tichy
It's not a consensus, at least I don't agree with it. I think the whole thing
is mostly marketing, as is evident by the TED talk where lomborg presents
mostly strawman argumentation (I don't think I have heard worries about heat
deaths elsewhere, yet he dwells on them, as an example).

------
quoderat
Riposte:

[http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-
darli...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-
darling/draper-text)

------
madair
Fair-warning, this IS a WSJ article, and thus should be well-salted when it
comes to their editorial stance on the facts in question.

~~~
ccc3
Which facts did you find to be editorialized, specifically?

~~~
madair
Ummm, it's an opinion page, selected by the editorial staff.

------
grandalf
today one out of three kids fears an environmental apocalypse. Fears about
global warming (and probably visions of a fiery inferno) are what kids'
nightmares are made of these days.

Why not just focus on dirty water and smelly air? That is reason enough, in my
opinion, to be responsible and forward thinking about the environment.

~~~
grandalf
wow I'm curious why this was modded down... does anyone have an argument for
why an extreme, apocalyptic message is necessary or helpful? (other than "well
it worked for Christianity!")

------
vinutheraj
I don't know if it's an evidence of global warming or not but the normal
temperature at our institute has risen 7 degree celsius from what is was at
this same time last year, which is kinda freaky and we are literally really
trying hard to survive here !!

source - <http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php>

~~~
huherto
ten days is hardly a sample.

~~~
pradocchia
for what it's worth, climate change does seems quite pronounced in some
countries (india, china), but that may be more due to local environmental
damage than global trends per se.

harbin, china, for example, used to experience 4~5 foot snow storms every
winter. you'd open the door and there'd be a wall of snow. these days you're
lucky to see a foot. some locals will say it's global warming--which it may be
--but northern china has also undergone extensive deforestation in the last 60
years. you'd expect changes in precipitation if you cut down 75% of the tree
cover.

