Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#31

Post by logjam »

antidaily wrote: post #4

Should I overlook the fact this guy is employed by The Cato Institute, which is funded by big oil?

The author of this sorry little polemic is whining about, in part, the justified criticism of an extremely poor paper whose publication and subsequent political use by the Bush Administration caused the resignation of half the editorial board of Climate Research.

"Some journalists are digging even deeper into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm."

http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

And now here we are on "Hacker News", where this axe-grinding swill keeps getting endlessly posted by the same axe-grinding posters to "Hacker News" and voted up by folks who frankly haven't taken the time to begin to look into the actual science.

("Hacker News"? This particular little niche website is fast becoming Wall Street Blog West. People who came for the tech are leaving because of the increasing emphasis on how to make a few fast buck any old way.)

Meanwhile, as an experiment a few days ago I posted an article from FactCheck that concluded "ClimateGate" is overblown nonsense, and that, "The American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement "reaffirm[ing] the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society." The American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists have also reiterated their positions on climate change, which they say are unaffected by the leaked e-mails."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

"Hacker News" response: ~crickets~

It was obvious that facts are the last thing Cato and the Wall Street Journal and the axe-grinders here are interested in.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#32

Post by antonovka2 »

logjam wrote: post #31
antidaily wrote: post #4

Should I overlook the fact this guy is employed by The Cato Institute, which is funded by big oil?

The author of this sorry little polemic is whining about, in part, the justified criticism of an extremely poor paper whose publication and subsequent political use by the Bush Administration caused the resignation of half the editorial board of Climate Research. "Some journalists are digging even deeper into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, N…

("Hacker News"? This particular little niche website is fast becoming Wall Street Blog West. People who came for the tech are leaving because of the increasing emphasis on how to make a few fast buck any old way.)

I agree. I found it depressing that your comment was down-voted to the negatives.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#33

Post by [deleted] »

antonovka2 wrote: post #32
logjam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of this sorry little polemic is whining about, in part, the justified criticism of an extremely poor paper whose publication and subsequent political use by the Bush Administration caused the resignation of half the editorial board of Climate Research. "Some journalists are digging even deeper into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, N…

("Hacker News"? This particular little niche website is fast becoming Wall Street Blog West. People who came for the tech are leaving because of the increasing emphasis on how to make a few fast buck any old way.) I agree. I found it depressing that your comment was down-voted to the negatives.

[deleted]

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#34

Post by DaniFong »

bballant wrote: post #23
jacoblyles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization of the world for potential far-off benefits has very real human costs now, in the present. If we wait 5 years to sign a Global Warming treaty, nobody will die. If we take trillions from the global economy to mitigate gas emissions that turn out to be harmless…

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.

It's a pretty clear link. Take a look at about 8:58 in Hans Rosling's TED Talk

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...

Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#35

Post by Retric »

Retric wrote: post #17
jacoblyles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization of the world for potential far-off benefits has very real human costs now, in the present. If we wait 5 years to sign a Global Warming treaty, nobody will die. If we take trillions from the global economy to mitigate gas emissions that turn out to be harmless…

Climate change has already killed people. Suggesting that waiting five years will kill nobody is begging the question. Now has it killed significantly more people than it has saved, and will waiting 5 years make a significant long term difference is debatable, but you can't just assume your answer and move on. Also, a 20-40% reduction in greenhouse gasses would (if done efficiently) cost less than 1 trillion over the…

There seems to be a fear of what reducing carbon emission would cost the world require giving up our modern lifestyle however, if we chose to mitigate at the least painful manor we can still do a lot.

EX: Coal fires in China burn 109 million tons of coal a year, emitting 360 million metric tons of CO2. This contradicts the ratio of 1:1.83 given earlier, but it amounts to 2-3% of the annual worldwide production of CO2 from fossil fuels, or as much as emitted from all of the cars and light trucks in the United States.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal Stopping that would do more than requiring every American to drive a hybrid to work and yet it's ignored.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#36

Post by hugh_ »

I was thinking about this the other day: what _is_ the best scientific statement we can make, at present, about anthropogenic global warming?

On one hand, we have theory. There's reasonably good theoretical reasons to expect that increasing carbon dioxide should increase global temperatures. However, every good scientist knows not to trust theory too much until it's been verified by experiment, especially when the system in question is so complex.

On the other hand, we have experiment. Unfortunately, we only have a sample size of one, and we don't have a control group. We tried increasing the CO2 emissions, and found that sure enough, the temperature did wind up increasing. But given there's only one planet in the sample and no planets in the control group, we certainly can't eliminate the possibility that there's no causal link. If we forget that we're looking at global temperature vs CO2 concentration and pretend we're looking at a high school kid's science project about whether playing music to plants makes them grow faster, we'd have to say that the experiment lends some support to the hypothesis but is hardly conclusive.

So what can we reasonably conclude? I think the fairest thing we can say is that it's more likely than not that increasing CO2 emissions causes an increase in global temperatures. Anyone who claims the science is "settled" though, the way it's settled for heliocentrism, evolution or relativity, is not much of a scientist.

(I am also, despite years of Year 9 science projects, still unsure whether playing music to plants makes them grow faster.)

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#37

Post by bballant »

w00pla wrote: post #30
bballant wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.

> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particula…

France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#38

Post by bballant »

DaniFong wrote: post #34
bballant wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.

It's a pretty clear link. Take a look at about 8:58 in Hans Rosling's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.

It is true that a developing nation typically needs to exploit its natural resources and cheap labor to industrialize and grow, which means CO2 emissions, but this is not true in modern, primarily service-based, economies, like the US. Again, US's GDP is roughly the same (slightly higher) per capita as that of the EU, but our CO2 emissions are (pitifully) over double the EU's, per capita. If there was a clear link, the the US's GDP should be much higher in comparison.

Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment.

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#39

Post by DaniFong »

bballant wrote: post #38
DaniFong wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty clear link. Take a look at about 8:58 in Hans Rosling's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.

It is true that a developing nation typically needs to exploit its natural resources and cheap labor to industrialize and grow, which means CO2 emissions, but this is not true in modern, primarily service-based, economies, like the US. Again, US's GDP is roughly the same (slightly higher) per capita as that of the EU, but our CO2 emissions are (pitifully) over double the EU's, per capita. If there was a clear link, t…

"Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment."

This is what I meant when I said "We need to get on a different curve."

Re: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

#40

Post by w00pla »

bballant wrote: post #37
w00pla wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particula…

France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.

Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower.

Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium.

I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.

Post reply on HN