Live data from Hacker News

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

facebook.com

191–200 of 237 posts

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

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think an environmental Pascal's Wager is a strong position to base actions on. Reducing emissions will have a strong effect on our societies and people's lives (and global economics), so it's important to weight things properly. Not saying you're wrong, just that criticisms of Pascal's Wager have validity.

> Reducing emissions will have a strong effect on our societies and people's lives Let's be a bit more concrete about this. In the near term, reducing emissions is going to reduce economic output. That is literally going to kill people. (The stress of poverty kills people. Lack of money to pay for food and healthcare kills people. So unless you've got a redistribution scheme that you can make actually happen in the r…

It will be easier to change our current ecconomic system than the environmental systems.

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

#192
post #8

Unrelated: Facebook notes look good. I wonder if it's a direct competitor to to Medium / Svbtle.

You mean placing text in a rectangle? Looks like it.

Reading this made me realize: it looks good read because there are no ads on the page. It's crazy how obtrusive ads are these days..

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

#193
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the temperature trend have a similar spike?

Yes. It's not as far out of the historical norms as CO2 levels, but the gradient on it is astounding . It's taken us about 100 years for temperatures to rise beyond their last peak, which occurred about 7000 years ago [1]. Note that this is precisely coincident with the rise in CO2. It's true that there's a historical feedback loop between CO2 and temperature, which operates in cycles. But we are now operating far be…

The wikipedia chart covers 450 thousand years on the x-axis, and a 14 degree range on the y-axis. Your chart covers 12 thousand years on x and 2 degrees on y. If your chart was shrunk to the same scale and overlaid on the first chart, it would be lost in the noise, and your astounding gradient would be nothing compared to the rises and falls 20K and 140K years ago, among others.

Very disingenuous of you.

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

#194
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you agree because someone says so, that's just another form of ignorance. No it isn't, it's not possible to educate yourself to the depth required on a great many things without becoming a professional in the field and while that's cool for those that want to; it's utter arrogance and ignorance to ignore the entire scientific community as a laymen and pretend you know better. Quite simply, if you are not a clima…

You have to be philosophist with a degree and specialization in philosophy of science to consistently make that argument. Are you?

No I don't, nor does my argument imply that since I didn't say it applies to everything but to a great many things. Everyone can use logic, but not all topics are matters of logic, climate science is not; it's a matter of evidence and correctly understanding the totality of the evidence requires one to be a climate scientist.

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

#195
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think that's true of everything, no? Before people thoughts ulcers were caused by stress they probably thought it was due to too much "humor" and required treatment by bloodletting. The point is that we advance scientific thinking by challenging ideas. If right now most scientists thinking global warming is real, then fine. Just don't try and shutdown the ones that don't agree.

No one is trying to shut down scientists that don't agree; they're trying to shut down the ignorant public who's non agreement is baseless because they're getting in the way of setting public policy based on the best information science has to offer us at the moment.

That is a problem that will never go away. You will always have someone spreading incorrect information and "getting in the way" (vaccines cause autism, etc).

If the global warming data is as rock-solid as they, I wouldn't worry to much about it.

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

#196
post #33
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. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. Bullshit. Whatever the focus was, vested interests would have funded opposition and that's what kept people divided.

"Merchants of Doubt"-style manufactured confusion, false-flag issue-advocacy and pseudo-contrarian FUD to smokescreen the reality of civilization-impacting health and environmental issues... from smoking to coal and more.

It's all about ease of delaying regulation to maximize profits, not conspiracy theories, just dirty tricks as means to ends.

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

#197

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…

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.

For decades, scientists, doctors and dietitians said that eating fat caused heart disease, and you should decrease your fat in your diet. Only in the last couple of years has this "fact" been deemed wrong.

I don't think you would have found a single scientist, doctor or dietitian since the 70s that would have disagreed with the above. It was taken as fact and anyone who thought differently would have been a laughing stock.

The same goes with global warming caused by CO2. It makes for an easily digestible theory, but it doesn't explain many known facts. Global warming caused by CO2 has never been proven, obviously, since you can't do experiments on a global scale. So there's already a lot of faith that you would need to take into consideration. There's circumstantial evidence at best. But still a lot of unknowns about climate and the vast changes that the Earth has undergone over the last 6B+ years, so to say that we know that the current warming trend is caused by CO2 to me is not science.

If you read this thread, it's humorous to read all of the people who think that there is data going back millions of years that links CO2 to climate change. It's a great example of how regular people just take whatever is spoon fed to them without thinking "really, does that make sense?"

For example, North America was covered in ice at one point, and the temperature increased dramatically over the last hundreds of thousands of years. What caused this, and could the same process be responsible for the warming we have seen in the last several decades?

The 5000 year old Iceman found in the Alps attempted to cross the Alps when there was very little snow. We know this because of the clothes that he was wearing when his body was found. So obviously the climate was much different 5000 years ago than today. What caused this change, and could the same process be responsible for the warming we see now?

We know that during the Medieval Warming Period, it was a lot warmer than it is now. What caused this change, and could the same process be responsible for the warming we see now?

I would like these questions answered before I change my opinion. As a man of science, I see too many people flocking like sheep to the answer of CO2 causing climate change. Just like the whole fat-in-the-diet belief, too many people don't really think, they assume that the scientists are right, which is not thinking, in my opinon.

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

#198
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.

I've been preaching this for years! Global warming makes as much sense as eternal damnation to non-believers. It redirects the environmental conversation away from tangible short term problems such as pollution to abstract long term problems like global warming. People can relate to problems affecting people (pollution and health, over-logging and soil erosion, over-fishing and lost jobs, oil and energy dependence, etc). Global warming is a lot harder to relate to. It's so abstract that it's easy for opponents to dismiss and spread FUD.

The shift in conversation towards Climate Change really hurt the environmental movement, IMO.

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

#199
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. Bullshit. Whatever the focus was, vested interests would have funded opposition and that's what kept people divided.

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…

No, what blows my fucking mind is that the environmental conversation switched from concrete short term problems (pollution) to abstract long term problems (global warming). One is really easy for laymen to reason, the other is nearly impossible. It makes as much sense as the Bible to atheists. It's not about evidence. Modern environmentalists put down the gun and brought a hot dog to the gun fight.

You have hard evidence in the form of visible undeniable toxic pollution occurring in China due to rampant and unchecked fossil fuel usage. This is not data extrapolated decades out—it's happening right now! Instead of using this as evidence to justify current "stringent" environmental regulations in the West and why we should continue them, you have people still talking about melting glaciers and rising ocean temperatures.

Shifting the conversation back to pollution and renewable energy achieves the same result: stopping catastrophic climate change. And it'll get us there faster than the current Bible-thumping message.

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

#200
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.

If pollution is your focus but not global warming, then you'll focus more on scrubbing technologies and better combustion and the like. A lot of stuff can burn extremely cleanly now if you ignore CO2, and the only reading to look at CO2 is climate change. It's not important at all as a pollutant otherwise. I also doubt that people would be unified on pollution if not for global warming. In my experience, the people w…

I disagree. Switching the conversation back to pollution will have the same end result as focusing solely on climate change.

Yes, a focus on pollution will result in cleaner dirty energy, but cleaner dirty energy is better than dirty dirty energy. Clean dirty energy is probably more likely to have lower CO2 emissions.

Climate change deniers may try to deny pollution, but pollution is a lot harder to explain away. Pollution happens in your face today (see China), but climate change happens 100 years away in extrapolated data models. You can explain over fishing destroying jobs instead of ecosystems. Or explain over-logging creating soil erosion that destroys homes.

People understand problems that affect people today, not ecosystems tomorrow.

Post reply on HN