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

Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

today.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

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

#91

Post by Dylan16807 »

krschultz wrote: post #86
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.

Or is it just that most comments don't get downvoted, especially well-written ones?

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

#92

Post by giaour »

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 don't think there would be nearly enough money to cover evacuation and rebuilding. Solar is already on track to become cheaper and more reliable than fossil fuel power, so the funds brought in by a carbon tax will diminish rapidly when there's no economic reason to use polluting power sources at a large scale.

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

#93

Post by guscost »

CarVac wrote: post #85
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, ho…

Are you saying I have been proven wrong? The assertion is not really backed up by anything, so I guess I could be totally wrong about the amount of remaining alarmist material.

Paraphrasing Popper, it is easy to find confirmations for any theory if you are looking for confirmations. So we will see plenty more global warming anecdotes in the coming years.

But the last proxy study to get big attention was Marcott 2013, no? And I'm sure you didn't read about it on CNN, but the meaning of the abstract had to be "clarified" on that one.

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

#94

Post by elipsey »

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…

We already tax economic externalites. A carbon tax is hardly "reorganizing society". If you want to stop doing that in general, then it's _you_ that wants to reorganize society according to your political beliefs.

Frankly, I'm sure you feel like you're winning a Bravery Contest (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates...) by posting this here, and I hate pile on, but this was blantant hyperbole.

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

#95

Post by emp_zealoth »

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…

Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography.

Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency.

Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU. And you know what? China would pick up the slack, and they hardly give a shit about anything. Right now,overdoing this locally actually increases net pollution. I guess we get to feel good.

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

#96

Post by giaour »

asgard1024 wrote: post #10

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", ca…

There's always the possibility that solar energy will become so cheap that it doesn't make economic sense to waste resources extracting fossil fuels from the ground.

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

#97

Post by lotharbot »

guscost wrote: post #65
drewrv wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet So on this one issue it's impossible for you to be convinced.

Not at all, there could be plenty of other evidence, I just can't imagine what it would be. Other than some kind of control planet, or maybe a complete overturning of nonlinear dynamics and/or chaos theory maybe. Of course, if the ocean was engulfing whole communities faster than people could run uphill, or people were choking on CO2, I'd probably be a whole lot less rational about it and say "let's throw things at t…

the thing about nonlinear dynamics/chaos is that it still allows for some degree of control and prediction -- not in the sense of being able to predict one specific trajectory, but in the sense of being able to make statistical predictions about likely regions for the trajectory to pass through, and even to be able to apply small controls to change a trajectory drastically and potentially keep it out of entire regions.

See, for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.... (yet another tribolium paper. The favorite insect of nonlinear dynamics and chaos books everywhere.)

I don't think we need to overturn anything mathematically to be able to talk sensibly about climate models, predictions, complex forcing mechanisms, and control. We just have to stop putting the cart before the horse (or the shady politician before the scientist) and look at what can be done to stabilize the ecosystem -- not necessarily worrying about catastrophic predictions, but simply looking at some of the measurable negative effects (like acidifying oceans, brought up in a sibling comment) and determining how to control the system in order to slow or even reverse those effects.

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

#98

Post by Guzba »

krschultz wrote: post #86
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.

This almost certainly isn't true, it's far more likely you've only noticed it when it worked. Every other time, when it didn't, the comments were buried at the bottom of the article.

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

#99

Post by guscost »

giaour wrote: post #88
guscost wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A few discrepancies (maybe the actual paper clears these up if anyone has a copy):

- The global warming part is discussed in much more detail (i.e. actual percentages, the statement that Democrats didn't show different behavior).

- Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures, the available data regarding the former is a lot simpler to logically connect to "a problem" than the available data regarding the latter, etc.

- I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing, if that is in fact what researchers are claiming.

In short, it seems like the other half was thrown in there to suggest a balanced perspective (again, the actual paper may be different so this could only affect the press release).

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

#100

Post by guscost »

krschultz wrote: post #86
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.

I'm pleasantly surprised (a lot depends on which people happen to click on the link), but was totally willing to spend 20 or so karma to say that.
Post reply on HN