Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#131

Post by brrt » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:36 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #48

toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain your lack of belief when 97% of climate scientists (there's conflicting data on this; some reports show as high as 99%) agree that human activity is causing global warming? EDIT: That's not rhetorical. I'll entertain any logical reasoning you have as to why your reasoning is superior to those educated and practicing the subject daily.

I'm sure a large majority of nutrition scientists supported a low fat diet 20 years ago. (Food for thought)

They still do. People who tell you carbohydrates are the problem have something to sell.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#132

Post by mikeash » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:40 PM UTC

smalldataguy wrote: post #109

Daishiman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts…

To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.

What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to ensure it's from renewable sources, using more expensive but more recyclable packing, and similar.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#133

Post by msvan » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:40 PM UTC

I wonder why, in the debate about fossil fuels, we never bring up the point that oil has been the cause of a lot of issues in the Middle East. Many guns and bombs have gone off in order to get to the Middle Eastern oil, and much of the funding behind ISIS comes from oil money in Saudi Arabia. Oil has had a pretty steep moral price tag.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#134

Post by ArkyBeagle » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #80

nmridul wrote: post #12

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.

Revisionist history much? We added lead to gasoline in the 1920s and it remained legal in most countries (including the US) until 1990s. In other words, it took us seventy years to stop actively adding toxic heavy metal to gasoline so that it spreads everywhere cars can go. After all, we're talking about an industry that can spread FUD about a whole branch of science. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to…

But Midgley and Kettering were from GM. And if you look at least at oil company PR these days, they're touting clean energy and taking warming quite seriously.

https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmob...

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#135

Post by bicknergseng » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #122

rybosome wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear, hear. The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a fina…

> The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The oil industry didn't give a shit about whether or not TEL was put in gasoline. It was the auto companies…

>> It blows my mind that people judge scientific work based on its funding source over its content and merits. Not saying its irrelevant, but good science is good science and bad science is bad science, regardless of who paid for it.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think determining what is "good" science and what is "bad" science is out of the reach of most people, let alone people who understand the scientific process. There's also often more than one conclusion to be drawn from any data, as well as the difficulty in gathering sufficient data or even knowing whether the data gathered is enough to provide any kind of accuracy. I think the "who paid for it" question has been used more and more try and provide more context (sometimes useful, sometimes harmful) into scientific or psuedoscientific conclusions... of course it gets misused as a non-sequitur just like everything else in rhetoric.

Again, not saying it's right, just trying to provide the context for _why_ people might use financial motives to judge scientific merit.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#136

Post by barney54 » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #39

merpnderp wrote: post #18

I like that he makes it more about the economics of saving lives, which should be the primary argument. But that is a tricky problem since we have 4 million a year dying from indoor cooking smoke, and millions more from other various aspects of extreme poverty. Most of which would be a greater ameliorated by cheap coal plants. Cheap coals plants are horrible polluters, but they are cheap, aren't as bad as indoor poll…

With too much reliance on cheap coal for economic growth, you end up here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/9861174/beijing-pollution-... China's use of coal has probably peaked. Any developing country would do well to follow China's lead and build renewables rather than coal, whatever its short-term advantages.

Developing countries are following China's example because it works. Renewables such as solar and wind are expensive and can't keep the lights on.

People in developing countries want "real electricity, not fake electricity" as villagers in Dharnai, India told the Chief Minister of Bihar state when he came to inaugurate a solar microgrid. (subscription required) http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060026477

Yes, Beijing's air quality is bad, but you can put pollution control systems on power plants and China is doing exactly that. A very large problem for Beijing is uncontrolled pollution from automobiles, scooters, trucks and other small engines.

The point about coal is that it keeps the lights on and it is affordable. That matters a huge amount when you don't have electricity.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#137

Post by ArkyBeagle » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:43 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #25

nmridul wrote: post #12

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.

There always will be a debate on global warming. I doubt this is true without the caveat: ...so long as the energy industry keeps funding an opposition.

I think the science will take a long time to harden beyond its present state. We can project forward estimates but this will refine over time. It's a long-term project.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#138

Post by mikeash » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:43 PM UTC

Sailfish wrote: post #123

hackuser wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There always will be a debate on global warming As long as the denialists are well-funded: Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing...

Oh, puhleaseeee! The Warmists are most well-funded funded there is, getting trillions of tax payer dollars for extremely lucrative jobs. If the guide is based on "follow the money" the Warmists will lose by orders of magnitudes.

I really hope this is a Poe. The idea that a person sincerely believes trillions of tax dollars are going to "warmists" is too much to bear.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#139

Post by ArkyBeagle » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:47 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #67

amalag wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.

"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts…

I doubt that's true - most people simply aren't equipped to understand it. I know I am not, but I have an old friend who is, and he ran me through the high points. I wish he'd write down what he'd told me - it helped.

I still assign a nonzero probability to finding out we're wrong. Because, y'know, science.

We should pay applied math PhDs to just answer questions as a general service :)

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#140

Post by SilasX » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:48 PM UTC

icanhackit wrote: post #128

robk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the same as Pascals Wager then? We should pray to God since the upside result is worth the downside cost.

The problem with Pascal's Wager: which God and thus which set of rituals and rules do you follow? You've got quite a selection to choose from. You go from having a simple Yes/No choice to having thousands of choices. In the case of action against climate change, the downsides of doing something are minimal compared to the downsides of inaction. It's a much more binary choice than what Pascal put forward.

Not to criticize taxing CO2 emissions (which has a solid case), but there is indeed an analogous dynamic here to Pascal's Wager: just as you ask "which God", one could ask "which emergency?", sampled from the set of events that respectable scientific movements have demanded immediate action on.

In the 70s, for example, one respected movement held that there would be an overpopulation crisis that justified drastic measures to halt the birth rate. There have been similar movements against nuclear power.

Alternatively, if we took immediate action on the crisis global poverty and got everyone up to Western living standards, that would conflict with the goal of reducing our environmental load. (Just as taking Pascal's Wager for God one conflicts with God 2.)