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

#141

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

rhino369 wrote: post #115

metamet wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they forgot a keyword? It certainly isn't the sole cause of global warming/climate change, but it is real. CO2 in the atmosphere--what's historically known as the greenhouse effect--leads to earth's warming. CO2 emissions are also undeniably connected to the the greenhouse effect, which we clearly have a role to play in. That's science that no one disputes. But somehow people come out of the woodwork as climate…

There are serious skeptics. Like you say nobody really disagrees with 1) humans release more c02 and 2) more c02 = warming via greenhouse. But that isn't the entire global warming theory. There are many feedback effects that occur. Like warming -> melting ice -> water vapor from condensation -> water vapor is a greenhouse gas -> more heat But there are negative feedback effects too. Like warming -> melting ice -> les…

If 5 degrees is a mass extinction event (I'm just using your numbers here, not positing them as facts of my own), how can you characterize 1-2 degrees (20-40% of your mass extinction event number) as a "small" issue?

As an "engineer" (note: software engineer, not a real engineer), I'd prefer to leave as much wiggle room as we can possibly muster on the spectrum of activities heading us towards "mass extinction event".

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

#142

Post by ArkyBeagle » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:50 PM UTC

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…

"The economics of saving lives" are usually pretty shoddy, frankly. Factor isolation is a nightmare, and as you point out, other goods may well counterbalance "bads."

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

#143

Post by acqq » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:52 PM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #130

gnaritas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.

It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedi…

In this case that you seem to support the skepticism is based on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argume...

"If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true."

For example, it's not that Einstein in 1905 made Newton's formulas from around 1700 unusable, quite the opposite, for a lot of purposes they are still used: it's just that for the very high speeds they need adjustment factors and more complicated math to express what's going on. The expected improvement in the science certainly won't make "everything we know wrong." Such formulations are just spammy titles. There will be only refinements.

For the current state, see:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784

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

#144

Post by taberiand » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:52 PM UTC

robk wrote: post #102

rybosome wrote: post #65

When speaking with people who do not agree with me on the correctness or urgency of global warming, this is the argument I traditionally make: let's examine the worst-case scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the science, taking it seriously is a logical choice. The plausible worst-case scenario of charging ahead with measures to combat climate change isn't actually that bad, not to mention the anci…

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

Except God isn't 97% certain to exist

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

#145

Post by Sailfish » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:57 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #69

gozur88 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you're reflexively dismissing people on the other side. They're still there, though.

What "other side"?? The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage. No climate scientists oppose it. I have not seen a single, reliable and useful model which goes against the fundamentals of climate change. There are no alternative hypothesis that explain the clima…

"The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage."

Wrong! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...

Where as, Warmists have Arnold, Gore, Pope Francis, Hollywood celebs and lying pols, &c ... all eminent scientists in their own right ... NOT! And let's not forget the infamous head of the IPCC who was also NOT a climate scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

"No climate scientists oppose it. I have not seen a single, reliable and useful model which goes against the fundamentals of climate change. There are no alternative hypothesis that explain the climate phenomena we're experiencing now."

That straw man is so obvious, I expect to see Dorthy, Tin man and the Cowardly Lion joining in anytime soon. There are no reliable or useful models which correctly defines fundamentals of climate change, period.

And speaking of Dorthy, how about NOAA jiggering the satellite data (the most accurate climate date source) to erase the 18-20 global warming cessation period: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/noaa-massivel...

I could go on and provide many more links bogus claims being refuted but with Warmists, it's just a waste of digital pixels.

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

#146

Post by andybak » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:57 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.

Given limited time and flawed or incomplete domain expertise, I think "follow the money" is an excellent heuristic shortcut.

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

#147

Post by andybak » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:57 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.

Given limited time and flawed or incomplete domain expertise, I think "follow the money" is an excellent heuristic shortcut.

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

#148

Post by ArkyBeagle » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:57 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #87

steven2012 wrote: post #30

I absolutely don't believe that human-created CO2 emissions cause global warming. However, I consider myself a staunch environmentalist. I believe we should be doing whatever we can to control pollution. It sickens me that factories pump out pollution, that we can barely eat fish anymore because of all the garbage and poisons we pump into our oceans. I think we need very strict controls on every form of pollution as…

What if you're wrong? CO2 may lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, making the earth uninhabitable in the long run (turning it into a Venus look-alike). I don't think we can risk this outcome (and the extinction of our race) just because because a couple of people think CO2 may not cause global warming.

But we don't know that the endgame is extinction of the race. We don't even know when various benchmarks will occur ( say, sea level at x% higher ) .

The physics of a Venus aren't on the table - SFAIK, all the carbon we're digging up and burning was once animal or vegetable matter, derived from a Carboniferous era level of atmospheric CO2.

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

#149

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 12:01 AM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #130

gnaritas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.

It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedi…

> It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying.

By other scientists when doing science sure, that's cool; by the ignorant public when working on policy, that's just ignorance.

> Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority.

No, if you are not a scientist in the field, your disagreements are just ignorance. Science can and should be challenged by those actually doing the science, not arguments from ignorance from the general public.

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

#150

Post by ejcx » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 12:02 AM UTC

Lots of very partisan folks here. My mother is an avid believer that climate change is a hoax and we don't need to take care of the planet. She says 'Mother earth knows how to take care of herself', but she deeply respects Arnold as a businessman, politician, and self-made man.

This is the type of thing that can reach her and change people in her boat's way of thinking. Way to go Arnold.