Read on Twitter
I was asked by @shellenbergerMD if I disagreed with his recent testimony. I can’t thread a reply, so I’m putting it into a new tweet thread. The answer is YES. https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1290330797459660800?s=20
here is his testimony: https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Shellenberger%20Testimony.pdf
Like rhetoric from most deniers/delayers who want to be taken seriously, most of the statements in the testimony are factually correct. The problem is with the embedded values (presented like facts), the rhetoric, and the things that are left unsaid.
Let’s begin with what facts are omitted. If we reach 3-4°C above pre-industrial, which certainly can happen if we don’t mitigate aggressively, then we will have warmed the climate by a comparable amount to the warming coming out of the last glacial maximum (5°C).
Think about how much the planet changed between the ice age and present climate and you can see why I think we should avoid letting the climate warm by a comparable amount over the next century or two.
And it gets worse. Warming coming out of the LGM took 10,000 years. Humans will warm the climate in a few centuries, leading to rates of warming rate 100x faster. We don’t know how bad that will be for people living through it.
Also note that modern human society evolved over the last few century — a period of relative climate stability — and has not experienced significant warming. Given how poorly we’ve dealt with COVID, it’s easy to be worried that warming of a few degrees will be catastrophic.
This is a key point — your testimony focuses on things that are uncertain, or unlikely, and neglects the quite terrible and certain impacts of climate change.
That's your choice, of course, but it tells me something about how much your values agree with mine (answer: not much).
That's your choice, of course, but it tells me something about how much your values agree with mine (answer: not much).
Something else you omit: even after we stop emitting, the climate’s temperature will remain elevated for thousands of years. In addition, warming this century may drive sea level rise of 10s of meters over the next millennium. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/926571426995372032?s=20
This reversibility of climate change makes continuation of emissions an extreme risk. Again, this reflects my values that we should be risk averse when dealing with the only planet we have. Your values may be different, of course.
You also don’t talk about extreme temperatures. Those are already terrible for poor people who live in hot regions. Read @jeffgoodell’s excellent discussion about this. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/climate-crisis-goodell-survive-extreme-heat-875198/
And this is with **1 deg C** of warming. Now imagine 3°C. Yes, I am extremely worried about that.
Moving on, climate change is causing more destructive hurricanes. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1177062642009214977?s=20
Moving on, climate change is causing more destructive hurricanes. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1177062642009214977?s=20
e.g., Hurricane Harvey was a climate-fueled disaster for the Gulf Coast that led to huge economic costs. Again, storms like this are occurring is with just 1 deg C of warming. Now imagine 3 deg C. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1115811563775168512?s=20
You might say: It wasn’t a disaster because it didn’t kill many people. Sure, number of dead is one metric. But other signs of misery exist: People who survived have had their lives destroyed. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houstonians-struggling-to-recover-after-Harvey-13739282.php
Now let’s talk about rhetoric. You say:
Yes, there are 7 billion people on the planet, so it’s a piece of cake to find someone saying something dumb. But why not talk about the other side? It’s trivial to find examples of people downplaying the debate.
The lack of symmetry here is a clear boost for climate denial. That’s a choice, but one I disagree with. I don't think supporting climate denial in any way advances the world towards rational climate policy.
And then there are a few total BS statements that get thrown in. Does anyone actually believe this?
I understand the appeal of being an iconoclast. It’s hard to get attention in the debate when you agree with everyone. And you're probably legitimately angry at people who don't support nuclear power.
But pursuing this "soft denial" will ultimately make you irrelevant in the debate. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1277632836384755712?s=20
