[jswinghammer]

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much.

I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.

I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.

[Retric]

seem to not want to debate the topic much

Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left?

At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old.

PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

[anamax]

> Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty.

If that were actually the situation, you'd land at the airport 10 minutes away. If you don't, I'd wonder about what you're telling me about the gauge.

If the folks who claim to be so concerned and informed about climate change were serious, we'd be breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant every week or so and we'd be completing them in 2 years.

Instead, we're thinking about breaking ground for some several years from now and the way the regs are set up, those won't get approved when they reach the decision point. The planned construction time also exceeds what could easily be achieved by someone who wanted power soon.

The US gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear. France gets over 70%. Moreover, if we had a huge surplus of electricity, we could start using it for more things.

Instead, we're passing out subsidies to the politically connected.

If you want people to think that climate change is a serious problem, you have to act as if it is. The AGW folks aren't and never have.

[nazgulnarsil]

right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?

[Retric]

You can also slow boil a lobster without causing them to react.

The trick is to react soon enough that the change is minor without over reacting and that's hard. I would propose a ~1% carbon fuel tax which funds wind farms which are then sold on the open market. You end up with a huge change at a small cost.

Option 2, create an semi independent government agency like the post office which takes 1 billion and builds wind / solar / hydro power plants. Use the "profit" of electricity sold to build more power plants and let exponential growth take off. This depends on the expected rate of return and could be accelerated with some debt financing.

In 20 years we may find it was pointless but we will have built infrastructure which is useful. Compared to a 2,980 billion dollar annual federal budget you can get a lot done with a change that's hard for most people to notice.

[nazgulnarsil]

how do we know what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years? we have a solution now, nuclear, we're just too stupid to actually use it.

[Retric]

what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years

I expect we will still have wind in 20 years and using infrastructure to turn wind into electricity seems obvious. The other real advantages to wind farms is you get energy sooner and it is simpler to scale exponentially. AKA 1billion wind farm = 50 mil profit and next year you have 1.05 billion wind farm which makes a 5.25 million profit so you now have a 1.125 billion wind farm next year... You can do similar things with debt financing, but that's higher risk.

Not to mention a smaller Not In My Back Yard problem. I consider oil mostly a done deal, we are going to burn most of the cheep oil because it's just so useful. But there is far more coal luckily it's far simpler to replace coal power plants than oil in cars / boats. We are also close to the tipping point where the free market is going to switch to wind on it's own, because it's cheaper.

[nazgulnarsil]

if "green" energy was profitable why would you need to subsidize it? people would do it voluntarily.

[khafra]

Your immediate death isn't on the line. WHO says that people are already dying as a result of climate change: http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/inde...

[plaes]

People have always died in the climate (weather) related accidents... It is just media that has made all these events "accessible".

When bad things happen, people want to know more... And this in turn means more $$$ (or €€€) for the media companies.

[gort]

"I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much."

Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creationism seriously, for instance.

ETA: Robin Hanson once wrote about this effect: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.h...

[mistermann]

So, the argument against the sky is falling is not "reasonable"? I think you just proved his point.

[nollidge]

If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.

Sure, if you're just arguing about science. Once words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" are thrown about, however, we're not talking about the science anymore.

[Tichy]

Maybe because you grow tired of silly arguments being repeated over and over again. I don't know much about climate science, but for example I think I know enough about evolution theory to be able to debunk the arguments of the creationists. Yet creationists won't give in - clearly reasoning is useless with them after a point. After a while I even suspect that the "opposing side" might have hired some people just to be obnoxious and bind the resources of "my side".

For example I felt it was sad when all new books by evolution researchers stared to be 50% arguing against the same old tired creationist arguments. I felt the energy would have been better spent advancing the science.

[TriinT]

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous."

Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science.

If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit.

Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.

[ramidarigaz]

The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it.

About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.

[TriinT]

The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation.

If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.

[mighty]

Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.

[TriinT]

English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer.

What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?

[lanaer]

If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary!

“Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all.

“climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period”

In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period.

“Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both).

Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.

[Tichy]

"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit."

Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information.

The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.

[TriinT]

"Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information."

Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1.

No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature.

Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.

[Tichy]

"Temperature of what???"

I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know).

"However, there are an infinite number of points"

Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out.

"Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature."

As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit.

(Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?).

"Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too."

Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done?

It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.

[TriinT]

"I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition."

Have you ever read about what that definition is on any discussion on global warming? I haven't. So they tell us the temperature is rising, but we don't know what temperature. What a joke...

"Seems to me a finite saple should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result."

"seems to me" is not very scientific, but you're right. Fortunately, physics makes it easy for us. We only need to sample every few hundreds of meters or so.

"Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out."

The problem is that if you don't have enough information of the present state, you will not be able to predict the (near) future state reliably. A very coarse discretization is most likely useless for prediction purposes.

"As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit."

If you don't understand the process used to obtain the numbers, you don't understand how much the numbers can be trusted. Scientists study things and make predictions. It's not the scientists' role to decide what to do. That is the politicians' role. Funny how things seem to have been turned upside down.

[Tichy]

"I haven't. So they tell us the temperature is rising, but we don't know what temperature. What a joke..."

Just because you haven't read it, doesn't mean they don't tell us. I may well have read it at some time, but I don't read such things frequently, so I forgot. I don't actually think you can write a scientific paper without giving a definition of the temperature you are talking about.

"We only need to sample every few hundreds of meters or so."

Why? What makes you think so? And what about your house that should be burning up by now? Is it not burning because the house 100m apart is not burning?

Also, maybe with satellites you can measure a lot of spots in one go - maybe even at 100m distance if that is the only thing that would make you happy.

Have you checked that they don't measure 100m apart? Because I get the impression that you just assume they only do bad science, without having checked that assumption.

"you will not be able to predict the (near) future state reliably."

Again, why not? Doesn't it entirely depend on the system and the circumstances? Like if you boil some water on the oven, and you want to know how fast it heats up, I am pretty sure measuring at one point is sufficient to predict the temperature rise for the whole pot of water (because you know it is a pot of water that is being heated from below with constant energy supply). Obviously climate is more complicated than a pot of water, but you still would have to supply better arguments for why you think current methods are insufficient.

What if you care about the ice in the arctic melting away - do you think it is impossible to measure that? (I don't know if it is possible, but for example it seems plausible that the area covered with ice is measurable from space to a high precision).

"If you don't understand the process used to obtain the numbers, you don't understand how much the numbers can be trusted."

Again, give examples of cases were you think the scientists did not do what was due. Naturally I can not verify their results directly (at least not without a significant investment of time). However, I can have a certain degree of confidence in the system that made them scientists, peer reviews and so on. (Edit: for example if they turn out to be merely popular fiction authors or philosophers, I am less inclined to believe them than if they are actually climate researchers)

Again, what makes you think they are all wrong - can you point out specific examples in major papers that are cited a lot in the debate?