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

221–230 of 237 posts

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

#221

Post by MaysonL »

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.

Permafrost melting

Annual Arctic ice cap melt increasing.

Bird migration ranges moving poleward, migration times moving winterward.

Animal and plant range moving poleward and upward.

Do you have an explanation for these facts other than climate change aka global warming? If not STFU. If you do, I'd love to hear it.

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

#222

Post by DougWebb »

akvadrako wrote: post #208
DougWebb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the drawback to your argument is that you're not considering all scenarios. One "worst-case" I can think of is that we charge ahead with measures to combat climate change, harming big parts of the economy in the process, and wind up with the famine, drought, and flooding anyway because we didn't charge ahead with the right measures. It's extremely important to determine whether the global warming is caused by…

Why does it matter if we caused anything? If the Earth is going to get too hot or too cold for our survival, we should try to stop it. Maybe we haven't affected the climate yet, but if we try we probably can.

It matters because it changes how we would try to stop it. If it's caused by something we're doing, we could just change what we're doing. If it's natural, then we need to find a way to alter nature. That gets into terraforming, which we really don't know how to do, and it'd probably be safer to to learn to live with the climate change rather than trying to stop it.

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

#223

Post by EdSharkey »

unprepare wrote: post #218
EdSharkey wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that irradience is difficult to pin to surface temps. From the same article: > The current scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in driving global warming, since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases. Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had ris…

I definitely see what you're getting at, that there could be yet-unknown/unmeasured variability in the sun's output that could be affecting the average global temperature. I fail to see, however, how this fact in any way discredits the research done by other scientists. You have a hypothesis that is untested, that is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the already tested hypothesis. Until that hypothesis is teste…

I appreciate your honesty, thanks. Yes, you have framed my personal hypothesis: the sun has varying radiation even throughout its predictable cycles and has changing magnetic field strengths that interacts with earth's. That variability and the water cycle on the earth accounts for the variability of our climate.

I haven't discredited anyone, that's just my opinion. I'd like to think I've read enough that I can chat confidently at parties, that's all. I think your opinion is fine too, and you have lots of friends at the parties I go to which is always a nice thing.

There is not anything sacred about "scientific consensus". There's always new hypotheses to test coming from outliers in any scientific field, always unexplained measurements to explore. Whenever I hear the term "settled science", I flip my wig. There's simply no such thing. My experiences with researchers at university is there is usually a pet theory chased by the lead researcher and you better toe the line or you get no grant funds. If most researchers are on the anthropomorphic global warming band-wagon then that's where everyone's head is at.

Yeah, well, the ugly vitriol flows both ways, I can attest. What you observe may be people who are grumpy being called idiots all the time and they're just lashing out, and probably just as many intellectually lazy people who like to troll. I wouldn't normally say anything in a forum that counters the popular viewpoint because I don't care enough to take insults, but people are mostly civil here at HN, thank goodness.

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

#224

Post by redblacktree »

lmm wrote: post #37
redblacktree wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very interested in an all-electric minivan with enough range for my frequent 600-mile trips to my wife's home town. Sadly, this does not yet exist.

You make a 10-hour-each-way trip frequently? Man, stop throwing away your life like that. Downsize your house, take a pay cut, do whatever it is you have to to move somewhere closer. I struggle to even begin to imagine the misery of what you're doing.

"Frequently" means 2-3 times per year. My family is somewhat close, hers is fairly distant, our roots are here. I don't think 40-60 hours a year to see family is so bad. We make good use of the time. Typically when we do take a trip, we'll spend at least a week there. And honestly, I don't mind the driving. It gives me time to reflect on my life.

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

#225

Post by redblacktree »

michaelt wrote: post #76
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a 10-hour-each-way trip frequently? Man, stop throwing away your life like that. Downsize your house, take a pay cut, do whatever it is you have to to move somewhere closer. I struggle to even begin to imagine the misery of what you're doing.

Many people choose their car based on their peak requirements, rather than their average requirements. I've seen people commute in a minivan every day because the space was useful taking their kids' stuff back and forth to college a handful of times a year. I've seen people buy SUVs because they tow a boat or a horse box once every six months. I've seen people buying larger cars so they can transport five adults in g…

> Many people choose their car based on their peak requirements

Exactly right. I don't want to pay for and maintain cars for different purposes, so I buy based on peak requirements.

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

#226

Post by redblacktree »

lotharbot wrote: post #44
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a 10-hour-each-way trip frequently? Man, stop throwing away your life like that. Downsize your house, take a pay cut, do whatever it is you have to to move somewhere closer. I struggle to even begin to imagine the misery of what you're doing.

Depends on what you mean by "frequently". I live within a 5-mile radius of 5 of my siblings, my parents, my grandparents, and my aunt and uncle. I'm a stay-at-home parent, my wife works from home, and our son attends an excellent school a block away. My wife's family lives a little less than 600 miles away. We travel out that way 2-3 times per year, which is frequent enough that I wouldn't want to rent a car every ti…

> The GP poster may be in a situation with similar characteristics

Shockingly similar. Though I am the working parent, and my job is only about 1/3rd work-from-home.

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

#227

Post by redblacktree »

Gravityloss wrote: post #119
redblacktree wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very interested in an all-electric minivan with enough range for my frequent 600-mile trips to my wife's home town. Sadly, this does not yet exist.

A plugin hybrid minivan would be perfect for you.

Do those really exist? I recently bought a 2015 Toyota Sienna, and I didn't see any hybrid options in Honda or Toyota (arguably the leading minivan brands)

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

#228

Post by vlehto »

gd1 wrote: post #209
vlehto wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence clearly points that: 1. CO2 causes the greenhouse effect. This can be replicated in aquarium. It's a fact. 2. Burnind fossil fuels creates CO2 as material does not disappear. Carbon included. 3. CO2 is not absorbed by oceans. It goes to atmosphere. Measurable fact, documented by Mauna Loa observatory since 1956. 4. The change in radiation balance shows in significant ways. As is shown by change in glacie…

1. F=ma, Newton's second law, can be replicated easily. It's a fact. 2. If I kick this soccer ball right here, applying a force, it will accelerate away from me. It's a fact. 3. Look, it has accelerated away from me, it's a measurable fact! ...a short time later... 4. Oh, I was standing at the bottom of a hill, so the ball just rolled back to my feet. Do you understand? We are discussing an insanely complex system, w…

We actually do need to talk about those feedback loops. Really.

In science that is extremely important, we probably don't disagree. This is obvious.

For laymen who vote about this shit and need to be informed? Again important. If we just wave around this "99% of scientist" shit, the intelligent, but uninformed part of populace is not going to buy it. They feel like being called idiots. There is nothing like that to make a person to vehemently oppose you, if he has based part of his ego on being intelligent.

Now in my circle of friends, who am I going to believe on this subject. The guy who goes "420 blaze it! 99% of scientist agree cars are bad!" Or the guy who is bachelor of something and is really really skeptical about all this climate change stuff. I would go with the latter.

The message should be "We hear you and we aren't 100% certain. Let's start from the easy stuff to minimize the potential bad stuff."

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

#229

Post by Gravityloss »

redblacktree wrote: post #227
Gravityloss wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plugin hybrid minivan would be perfect for you.

Do those really exist? I recently bought a 2015 Toyota Sienna, and I didn't see any hybrid options in Honda or Toyota (arguably the leading minivan brands)

I don't think so. There's very few plugin hybrids on the market at all, which is a shame.

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

#230

Post by smalldataguy »

mikeash wrote: post #217
smalldataguy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...

How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?

We may have to disagree at this point, but there are 100 billion worth of dollars, which is going to create some pretty strong economic interests. Are you using "entrenched" in a historical sense? I suppose I'm using it more as a substitute for "heavyweight".

Anyhow, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that there are strong economic powerhouses controlling billions of dollars trying to promote the green movement.

I'm not totally sure if the other side of the coin is particularly relevant, unless it's the case that politicians are all already bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests, and thus not available to be bought by newer "green" economic interests.

Regardless, what were we discussing?

Post reply on HN