Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions • Hacker News Board

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#81

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #61

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

I just want to live in a clean, healthy, diverse and vibrant environment regardless of any climate science. It's unfortunate that your standards are so low when it comes to pollution, the mass extinction human activity creates and the general destruction of the planets ancient ecosystems but seeing as you don't really care it would be wise to get out of the way of the people who do.

I also consider a healthy environment to be a valuable resource, and our disagreement is entirely about the best way to ensure it remains that way.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#82

Post by brrt » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance.

The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon).

Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks.

But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it).

And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#83

Post by jfoutz » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #72

jfoutz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, i'm with you. Falsification is a huge deal. As far as "complex" goes, i'm thinking of the old strange attractor. I don't know if it'll rain on sept 19 2016, but i think it's safe to say there will be 3 inches of rain next september. If we refine our understanding and language, there's a nice probability density function for quantity of rain over the month of sept 2016. Not much probability around 0, not much beyo…

I'll agree that your favorite model is lot more likely to work than the "because gay sex" model, because your favorite model presumably has causal relationships based on measurable reality. And I like the idea that atmospheric composition could be a strange attractor in the climate system. But then you'd have to throw the simple forcing model for CO2 out the window, and come up with a hypothesis for why there is a st…

I think we hit the max depth, so i'm replying here.

Yes, i enjoy civil rational discussions (well, i try to be rational) on HN. there's a bunch of smart people and it's fun.

Anyway, i think i get your point, allow me to phrase it this way "they may be getting the right answers, but they aren't getting the answers for the right reasons"

My handwavy counter argument is, Aristotle said "continuous motion requires continuous application of force" and he was wrong. But in day to day life, if you need to move the cart, you gotta keep pushing on it. He wasn't dead wrong, he did capture some essence the truth. Newton came along and got more of it. Einstein got even more.

Allow me to put a few more words in your mouth. I think you weakly agree with the climate scientists, not the crazy militants, but the grad students sitting in a tiny office doing math. You don't think they're dead wrong, they just don't have enough of the truth to be useful, newton hasn't come along yet and shown us how it all fits together.

Ok, i gotta go get some stuff done, but it was indeed thoughtful and fun.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#84

Post by nostrademons » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #76

nostrademons wrote: post #71

I've got somewhat unorthodox views on global warming that might make for a good test of this: I fully accept that global warming is real, human-caused, and a major problem in the coming century. However, I don't believe we should limit carbon emissions. Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacu…

I see two problems with this proposal. 1) Migrating an entire city's population elsewhere is a MASSIVE undertaking. Not just in cost, either; we're talking about uprooting an entire population's lives and moving them elsewhere, which has all kinds of social problems. Look at New Orleans and Katrina for a great example of this. Under your strategy, pretty much the whole city should have just been abandoned and rebuilt…

It is a massive undertaking, but probably less of an undertaking than bringing carbon emissions down to acceptable levels. Estimates of the latter run from around $300B [1][2] to $2T [3] to around $2.5T [4] per year. By comparison, estimates on the total cost of Hurricane Katrina rebuilding usually run around $125B. [5][6]

As for earmarking funds - one possible mechanism might be a carbon tax + insurance subsidy. The idea is to tax carbon emissions at a rate that is lower than what mandatory carbon reductions would cost, but higher than the expected value of new natural disaster rebuilding. Some of the proceeds would be distributed to existing insurance companies, which already have expertise in both investing and in paying out claims. Normal market discipline keeps this industry competitive, which eliminates the waste that would accrue if a government bureaucracy were created to do the work.

Regardless, we should have comprehensive evacuation plans for each major city worked out. That sort of work costs barely anything and has big payoffs in a lot of situations.

[1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-c...

[2] http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pi...

[3] http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcolleg...

[4] http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustainability/latest...

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/hurricane-sandy-vs-...

[6] http://www.livescience.com/32181-how-much-did-hurricane-katr...

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#85

Post by CarVac » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

Why do you regard this as "evidence that the alarmists have very little material left"?

Are you suggesting that this was a "last resort" after "running out" of research in favor of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? Do you think that the Duke Fuqua School of Business is so tightly knit with the climate science community?

I think you may be biased by your hope that no further evidence surfaces; otherwise, how could you continue believing what you believe?

Take this not as criticism of your beliefs, but as criticism of how you cling to your beliefs. I try to be happy to be proven wrong, no matter the consequences. Can you say the same?

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#86

Post by krschultz » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

I've noticed that a common tendency on HN to avoid downvoted is to start your comment by saying something like 'time to spend some karma'. It seems surprisingly effective, I think because many on HN want to think they're contrarian so expressing that your opinion is contrarian is a way to garner support.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#87

Post by giaour » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #77

jfoutz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me at the paper that outperforms that model. I'll do my best to read and understand it.

This is an irrelevant tangent, but I liked the previous dialogue.

He's asking you, "what causes you to see your belief as more valid, other than nihilism?" I wouldn't call that an irrelevant tangent.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#88

Post by giaour » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #56

erikpukinskis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend The notion of "proving" a future trend doesn't make sense. That's not how science works. You test a model against past data, and then people use the model to help them make decisions until we find a better model. Things are only ever proved after the fact. > Literature like this makes me happy, because it is furt…

Science isn't about demanding legislation either. And the entire OP is a thinly-veiled insult aimed at the authors' political opponents. That's the point I'm trying to make, although perhaps it could be made more politely.

The study (and the article) took pains to point out that what they observed is a universal phenomenon, as evidenced by liberals dismissing concerns about rising crime if the solution meant more guns and conservatives dismissing climate science if it meant more taxes.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#89

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

brrt wrote: post #82

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance. The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by sp…

Of the many factors you are not considering, albedo affects how much solar radiation (not all of it visible) is reflected back into space.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#90

Post by rorykoehler » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:33 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #81

rorykoehler wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to live in a clean, healthy, diverse and vibrant environment regardless of any climate science. It's unfortunate that your standards are so low when it comes to pollution, the mass extinction human activity creates and the general destruction of the planets ancient ecosystems but seeing as you don't really care it would be wise to get out of the way of the people who do.

I also consider a healthy environment to be a valuable resource, and our disagreement is entirely about the best way to ensure it remains that way.

Enlighten me please.