I hope that we see more measured, objective articles like this. It's been pretty frustrating as someone on the sidelines looking in, the degree of panic and emotion attached to the climate stuff, that has always seemed to be out of scale with the actual effects to me.

I'm ~50, and my whole life, back to the 80's, there have been these sort of breathless extreme articles about the existential threat that climate poses. I remember, as a kid, it was global cooling, and we were all going to have to deal with an ice age, which terrified me.

Then it was global warming, and the "tipping point" and hawaii and all of our coastal cities were going to be under water within 5 years.

Then it was "climate change" which was poorly defined to me, but humans were definitely to blame, and causing hurricanes and destroying the planet - even though when I bothered to look at the actual data, the rate of hurricanes and other events had actually decreased.

I've read some super compelling articles from what I'll call "measured environmentalists" that argue persuasively that to do the most good for people, we should shift our focus to immediate harms that we can actually control well - things like malaria, and reliable clean water and heating, that would have a far greater impact for tens of millions of people than something nebulous like carbon credits.

I'm far from an expert on this stuff, I just wish that the conversation (as with so many things) could have less yelling, and more considered thoughtful discussion. This article, and Gates' seem to be a great start.

▲

abdullahkhalids 15 hours ago | parent [-]

An article talking about a complex system [1] (the Earth's climate system coupled to human industrial/farming systems) with few hard numbers, no mathematical models and graphs of their behavior, and no links to any such discussions, is not objective in any sense of the word. It's all the author's uncited subjective views.

This is the kind of stuff one should take in from one ear, and let it out through the other ear without letting it touch the brain.

[1] complexity in the sense of mathematics.

▲

claytongulick 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right? In this case, it seems like an actual climate scientist that has moderated his opinion over time, at least that was my takeaway.

That makes it at least as valuable to me as any given "we're all going to die" article that pops up endlessly in these kinds of discussions.

I agree though, that a big problem with these conversations is dealing with complex systems, small signals and potentially large impacts and communicating all that in an effective way.

Most people (myself included) are simply not equipped to understand the details, so we rely on others to explain it to us.

My point was just that I enjoy a more balanced take on the issue.

▲

abdullahkhalids 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right?

In a well-established field like Physics or Biology, if an expert is talking about the established part of their field, they can just say things and you can trust that they are correct. If they saying things about the unestablished parts of their field - say a physicist talking about string theory - they need to properly cite stuff.

In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement, every expert needs to cite their sources so people in adjacent fields can verify what they are saying.

	▲	tpm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement Is there? In the actual science, not in the I'm-a-contrarian-because-fossil-pays-well scene.