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

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

#101

Post by lotharbot » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

pekk wrote: post #28

Udik wrote: post #9

I wonder if the study is able to make a distinction between solution aversion and what could be called "proponent aversion". That is, it is normal to be skeptical of a statement when it comes from somebody we don't trust. And our level of trust can be dependent from another statement coming (or perceived to be coming) from the same source. In this case, the proposed solution to the problem. I've concocted an example:…

I wonder if we can make that distinction either. It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive that the main use of citing an increasing suicide rate is to push homeopathic education. If your aversion to certain proponents relates back to what it is they are proposing, it is not really an aversion to those proponents but to their proposals. Maybe proponent…

> "Proponent aversion would be if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because Obama ... had made that claim"

Another example might be gun/crime statistics from the NRA vs gun/crime statistics from gun-control advocates.

There's the inherent suspicion that the statistics had been twisted to fit an agenda, because you've caught that proponent or someone from the same ideological group doing it before, and that therefore the statistics themselves are untrustworthy.

I apply a mental correction factor when dealing with a group I think lies for agenda purposes -- I figure they're spinning things maximally in their favor, so what they claim forms one end of my error bars. Sometimes my expectations regarding the size of the error bars in that field lead me to believe that it's likely the data is actually centered all the way on the other side. In that sense, their statements can imply their own contradiction in some circumstances.

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

#102

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #83

guscost wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contin…

Yep, that sounds fairly reasonable. I'm just an amateur philosopher of science so I don't really have my own theories to add here, but I do find a lot of what's out there interesting. I don't like seeing politicians run directly towards their favorite conclusions with whatever half-formed material they can find, because it actively subverts the interesting parts (and sure, I don't agree with the politics in this case).

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

#103

Post by ocschwar » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:20 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…

"The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it. "

The science of the shape of the earth isn't settled either. Nothing is ever really settled. But to "un-settle" a matter of science, you need actual evidence. Which the deniers do not have.

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

#104

Post by Qwertious » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #96

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.

That's possible, but we don't have a mechanism that can cause it and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon on its own.

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

#105

Post by emp_zealoth » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #92

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.

Solar right now is hundreds of billions away from being ready. For a medium sized country

Cant give a source, but the figure ive seen is 150 billion € in Germany, for nearst future.

You need to install overcapacity and service it. You need to rebuild the grid from the ground up, overengineer it massively. You need to add storage, at great expense and huge drain (batteries tend to become worn out in a few years)

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

#106

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #90

guscost wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of the most important I can think of:

- Watch the documentary called "Pandora's Promise"

- Don't throw away aluminum or other metals if you can help it, and don't litter

- Support organizations and companies that are good members of society, at least as best as you can tell

- Encourage and persuade other people to care. Coercion is not going to work better in the long run because any scheme will eventually fall apart and at that time we will all be a lot better off if people have some kind of internal understanding of these values.

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

#107

Post by asgard1024 » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #75

asgard1024 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remain astonished that supposedly educated people could ever believe otherwise Let me take a stab at this: > thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate Sometimes, non-linearity doesn't really matter. Human body is complex system, we don't fully understand it, but you wouldn't stand in front of a car that runs 100kph. Be…

Whoa, you're citing the consensus as an experimental result? What is this, economics? ;) And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. Out of curiosity do you have a list?

There are many different empirical results that lead to current consensus of climate sensitivity. The consensus is the consequence of these. A good summary is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced... in figure 4.

> And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity.

AFAIK he only included CO2 and water vapor (as a feedback) in his calculations. There are many more both positive and negative feedbacks, such as methane or aerosols. But they pretty much cancel out in the end, as more complex models indicate. And Plass was completely ignorant of climate history, which is also one of the important sources of climate sensitivity estimates.

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

#108

Post by jameshart » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:44 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…

That is a peculiar reaction to this research.

I take it from your argument that

1) you reject the IPCC scientific concensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity and will lead to significant impacts in the next century and

2) you disagree with the introduction of regulatory frameworks to, for example, build the external costs of carbon emissions into the economy in the form of carbon taxation.

I also assume that you think you believe 2) BECAUSE you believe 1).

Faced with a research paper that suggests that often people adjust their opinion of research based on the palatability of proposed solutions, I find it interesting that you don't see this paper as evidence that you should go back and reconsider whether your rejection in 1) is, at least in part, driven by your distaste for the kind of solution proposed in 2).

What I don't see is any reason why this research gives you further confirmation for your position with respect to 1), which would therefore reinforce your commitment to 2).

Can you explain your logic a little more clearly?

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

#109

Post by jberryman » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

> I'd probably be a whole lot less rational...

I think you imagine that you are being very rational, because you've studied some climate science and believe you're intelligent enough to form your own judgement, but you're wrong. It's extremely irrational to dismiss the consensus opinion of climate science researchers based on your own (epistomologically limited, non-professional-climate-scientist) assessment of their research.

> it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.

And say the likelihood of this doomsday scenario being correct is 10% by your assessment: do you think a rational risk analysis would conclude that we should do nothing and go about business as usual? Do you also enjoy playing russian roulette when your not skimming climate science articles?

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

#110

Post by jazzyk » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 6:48 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…

A lot of the data we have is incredibly inaccurate, to say the least. A recent study from Yale stated that the actual number of trees on Earth is almost 8 times the number previously estimated. EIGHT times! If we can't even count freaking trees, do you expect me to trust numbers concerning much more complex models of the atmosphere?

Also, claiming the parent post is "clearly out of ignorance" is both arrogant and disrespectful. There are published reports from reputable sources postulating vastly different theses/opinions.

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell