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

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

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 237 posts

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

#151

Post by acqq »

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…

Other factors don't contribute much. It's real, it's human made and dangerous:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor...

The state of CO2: now around 400 ppm, 20 years ago was 350 ppm, and that was already more than during the last 800 thousand years, and now it's increasing unbelievably faster:

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/11_19_1...

(based on http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html )

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/11_19_1...

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

#153

Post by nikdaheratik »

jpadkins wrote: post #94
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…

aggressively stimulating renewables is one thing, but a lot of people are calling for a world wide flat carbon tax. That is a very regressive tax that will hit the poorest the hardest. It will barely register for the average californian, but it will cause many products and services to be priced out of reach from people in developing economies. So the worst case scenario all depends on what is being proposed.

The "regressive" part of the tax can be mitigated just by rebating some (most?) of the money back to the people who would be most impacted. The rest can be used for R&D into clean energy, power grid improvements, etc.

The bigger issue is making sure the tax is applied consistently everywhere, otherwise we just move polluting industries to countries with lax enforcement and put countries that are enforcing the tax at a disadvantage.

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

#154

Post by gnaritas »

refurb wrote: post #121
gnaritas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no longer a matter of belief, the evidence is in, the overwhelmingly vast majority of climatologists say you're wrong; end of debate. Now it's time to do something about it.

I think that's a terrible idea. For hundreds of years, people thought stress and food caused ulcers. It was scientific fact and if you doubted it, you'd likely be labelled a crackpot. Until a scientist in Australia proved ulcers were caused by bacteria. So consensus was wrong. Very wrong. I'd prefer it if people kept questioning everything. How else do we push forward our knowledge?

Scientists should always continue to question everything when doing science; the general public however is not in a position to do this and they should follow the consensus of scientists when setting public policy. You can't wait forever when making policy, so you go with the current best knowledge.

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

#155

Post by ansible »

rudolf0 wrote: post #88
Daishiman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're dismissing their claims without actually stating them or refuting them, as do many people. I believe their claims are false, but I don't dismiss them. Trying to wave away statements by alleging ulterior motives or lack of knowledge only empowers the opposition. Debate them rationally, and you'll start to change more views.

Debate them rationally, and you'll start to change more views.

I don't have the link handy, but not too long ago there was an interesting article about that posted to HN. Using reason doesn't actually work well with most people, most of the time.

People get emotionally attached to certain ideologies. It becomes part of their core identity, much like sports team affiliation.

It is often more effective to find emotional arguments instead. Show them pictures of smog in Bejing, for example. Or how the Marshal Islands are sinking under the ocean (well, the sea level is rising).

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

#156

Post by vlehto »

Jedd wrote: post #113
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…

So, basically, the Precautionary Principle [1] "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action." Perfectly sound, perfectly logic…

Here is Lindybeige using that argument to justify why you should hop on one foot, and ban football.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R999ZLlSdI

But I agree that in general it's good principle. For climate change it's not that applicable. It's easy to show that burning oil is good for the economy. It's difficult to show that it's bad for the climate. If we say that Shell needs to show some proof that burning oil is overall good two things will happen: 1. Shell forges bullshit. 2. Everybody keeps burning oil just like today until there is some kind of replacement. Just for practical reasons.

So then it goes to "why we need to invest money to the alternatives". And then that precautionary principle could be applied to that investment.

TL;DR You need to show fossil fuels are bad, for practical reasons.

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

#157

Post by gnaritas »

DougWebb wrote: post #79
Daishiman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. That's dismissive: you're claiming that the people who disagree with you are only disagreeing because they're idiots who should be ignored, and/or are being paid to disagree.

Dismissive or not, he's right that that's mostly the case. You don't see the climate science community arguing much about this issue. It's right to dismiss them.

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

#158

Post by Sailfish »

mikeash wrote: post #138
Sailfish wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Warmists and the frauds who are perpetuating it. For the ring leaders, the goal is to get billions of tax payer dollars (via carbon tax) to be funneled to the UN for their uses. This is the biggest pyramid scam since Social Security.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarmin...

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

#159

Post by eloff »

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…

I downvoted you, not because I disagree with you, but because you have your head in the sand. Not believing in human caused global warming at this point is like not believing in the germ theory of disease. The weight of evidence against that position is so insanely lopsided that the only way is possible to defend it is out of sheer ignorance. Please educate yourself on the topic so people don't laugh at you behind your back.

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

#160

Post by gnaritas »

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.

Pascals wager is a simple false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. It's not a rational argument.
Post reply on HN