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

111–120 of 132 posts

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

#111

Post by jameshart »

panic wrote: post #11
asgard1024 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. I disagree, the two examples (climate change and gun control) aren't that different. Both are issues of personal freedom. I actually wish they would show some blind spots of collectivist liberal anarchists (people like Chomsky), who I feel very close political sympathies to. I am (obviou…

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

My iPhone was made in China. Where was yours made?

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

#112

Post by brrt »

emp_zealoth wrote: post #95
brrt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Norway is not comparable to mainland EU, I'm not claiming that. But Norway does have an intensive oil and gas industry which emits copious amount of CO2. Because of the CO2 tax, they have implemented the worlds first (and only) commercial carbon-capture and storage (CCS) project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_gas_field#Carbon_capt...).

As for China stealing European industry, that's happening already, and it's really nothing a little protectionism can't help. Protectionism is bad, but so is losing jobs, and worse is acting like you are powerless when really you aren't.

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

#113

Post by asgard1024 »

nitrogen wrote: post #73
asgard1024 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself liberal yet I don't agree with it, though you're right, there are many elitist liberals around. I think they are easily spotted by their opposition to direct democracy. And I actually think we should always assume "nurture". My reasoning is when you assume "nature", that's a dead end. This is a similar argument to whether the world is knowable - assuming it is will get you further.

How is that a dead end? I have greater confidence in humanity's ability to find a genetic therapy to boost intelligence than its ability to compensate for bad parenting and culture.

Assuming the current level of technology of course - I don't think there is anyone who successfully improved their own intelligence with biotechnology. Once there is such therapy, it simply becomes "nurture". But I am not sure that even matters, people are creative and they will find a way to blame unsuccessful people or nations for systemic failures.

Genetic therapy as our future? It's likely you will get choices like "you can have 1 more IQ point, bigger toenails and 10% higher risk of cardiovascular disease after 50".

On the other hand, you can do this today, and pick an intelligent partner to have kids with. And people do and we have empirical evidence of growing IQ (but actually it is explained by nurture) - regardless some still talk about how Idiocracy is our future.

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

#114

Post by rorykoehler »

guscost wrote: post #106
rorykoehler wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can't fault anything you have said. I do feel there is an industrial level of operation that lives by and therefore needs different rules than the rest of us. The complexity of the situation and the systems, both man made and natural, that dictate the realities we all face with regard to environmental phenomena is very hard to hold in ones mind all at one time. I can imagine it's also a great challenge for scientists working in the field.

From what I can tell there has been no climate conspiracy. One thing that always helps me visualize what we are doing with our atmosphere is astronaut Gerry Carr's observation that if the earth were the size of an apple then the atmosphere would be as thick as the skin of the apple. We have a terribly fragile environment and everything should be done to conserve it. If we go 100% renewable there will still be untold amounts of damage caused to our eco-systems due to mining etc however it will be much easier to contain than the burning of fossil fuels which just spew out and spread around our minuscule atmosphere unchecked. Nuclear mining will also cause damage and while I am not against nuclear as an option it does bother me that we build nuclear stations in earthquake hotspots. This doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in me that we will make good decisions with something as potentially dangerous as nuclear in the future.

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

#115

Post by brrt »

guscost wrote: post #89
brrt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are absolutely right, I oversimplified, but that has the advantage of giving us plenty of other experimental bodies to compare with (i.e. the solar system). For what it's worth, this oversimplification gives a pretty good average temperature of 15 deg celcius on earth.

Albedo is an important factor, but there is actually very much uncertainty about human influence on earths albedo, and at any rate the effect seems to be pretty small. Humans' effect on CO2 on the other hand is extremely well-established and much greater, which is why it's logical to focus on it.

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

#116

Post by hga »

lotharbot wrote: post #101
pekk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Here, though, most of the raw data comes from the FBI/DOJ, so pretty much everyone accepts it (even if some number of homicides are scored as "accidents", as happened in my home town) and can easily go back to it; the same is not true for many many other domains like the climate.

But the statistics are indeed critical, or must be viewed critically. E.g. the Kellerman study that said "N times more likely to be killed with a gun in the house!!! than use it to kill an intruder" is utterly bogus from the start, because gun owners don't score kills as the only type of successful self-defense uses.

That sort of critical thought, though, isn't particularly fashionable....

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

#117

Post by hga »

guscost wrote: post #99
giaour wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Measuring the total number of violent break-ins

Is actually a bit hard. That's why we (our DOJ) and e.g. the U.K. mirror direct police reports (which have under-reporting by citizens and outright falsification by authorities) with surveys, and those of course have their own problems. But, yeah, easier than climate.

I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing

I think by this you mean you think the significant factions of the left claim violent crimes are increasing?

When violent crime has been decreasing for quite some time.... My favorite point to make here is that our post-WWII history may track demographics better than anything else, the thesis behind this being the more young men in your population, the more crimes.

Let me add a favorite statistic here: since I've been watching this closely, the number of people and guns in the US have increased by roughly 50%, and the absolute number of fatal gun accidents has dropped by 25%.

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

#118

Post by lotharbot »

hga wrote: post #116
lotharbot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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,…

Here, though, most of the raw data comes from the FBI/DOJ, so pretty much everyone accepts it (even if some number of homicides are scored as "accidents", as happened in my home town) and can easily go back to it; the same is not true for many many other domains like the climate. But the statistics are indeed critical, or must be viewed critically. E.g. the Kellerman study that said "N times more likely to be killed…

even the raw data is subject to questions, two of which you point out: (1) is everything being categorized correctly, and (2) are we counting the right thing?

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

#119

Post by CarVac »

guscost wrote: post #93
CarVac wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

First of all, when you call it alarmist that's inherently reinforcing your bias that the concern for the climate is exaggerated. I find it difficult to believe that you could be evaluating them objectively with that sort of mindset.

Regarding Marcott 2013: are you saying that your scepticism is mainly for proxy studies, and there haven't been many recently?

What about that paper don't you trust? Have you read it yourself? (I'm reading it right now) Do you think it's intentionally underestimating the temperatures in the past to confirm that global warming is occurring?

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

#120

Post by Malician »

jameshart wrote: post #111
panic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

My iPhone was made in China. Where was yours made?

It was not designed in China, as a unified part. In fact, even the important components were not designed or manufactured in China. Even the CPU was manufactured in Taiwan or Korea depending on the phone version.

http://www.smics.com/eng/index.php The state semiconductor corp is still on 40nm, which the Taiwanese TSMC hit seven years ago.

Post reply on HN