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

The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#81

Post by dejb »

nkurz wrote: post #73
Alex3917 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Interesting how so many people who know NOTHING about Science are SO sure that global warming is caused by man. Such dogma reminds me of the times of the 16th century Inquisition: no amount of evidence will ever convince the nutcase warmists that there MIGHT be a possibility that global warming is not caused by humans." I'm calling your BS. There are very few if any people who believe that it is impossible that glob…

"There are very few if any people who believe that it is impossible that global warming is not caused by man." Are you saying that nobody claims that the observed global warming could not be caused by natural causes, and thus the warming must have been caused by man? For if you are claiming this, I think you are wrong. There are definitely a few very influential people claiming that climate change can only have been…

Upmod for effort but I don't see this as equating to 100% certainty. The preceding sentences mention a variety of possible causal agents of climate change. In context the statement then is really

'Of the causes we have been able to identify - Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.'

I also see 'can explain' is 'the we can explain'. You are encouraged not to use the first person in these sort of papers.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#82

Post by FictiveEvan »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #74
FictiveEvan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read of an interesting thought experiment once - a way to take the moral judgment out of the anthropogenic global warming debate. Imagine that there were never fossil fuels or elevated CO2 levels. Now imagine that scientists have (somehow) determined that the sun has suddenly increased its energy output in such a way that would exactly mimic on this imaginary planet, the proposed effect of elevated CO2 on our plane…

That doesn't make sense to me. It completely sidesteps both the questions of responsibility, as well as questions about our desired environment. I am -- or was, before my "startup" days -- an avid hiker, backpacker, etc.; to me, your thought experiment translates this way: Imagine that I was out hiking, and that I see a bunch of trash on the trail. Now imagine that the trash doesn't belong to me. Should I pick it up?…

I think your analogy is flawed, since it assumes that the trash was put there by another person (just like CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by other people). A better one would be if you came upon a barren, ugly landscape - would you be morally obligated to improve it?

That said, I see your point about us humans managing our environment and making it more to our liking. We've been doing it for thousands of years. I just don't understand what basis we have for making the sort of radical changes proposed by "climate change" alarmists. How do we know the outcome will be to our liking?

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#83

Post by Tichy »

robotrout wrote: post #36
Tichy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts can go wrong, too - and who defines who is an expert and who isn't? Some amateurs might have read more about the issue than the self-proclaimed experts. And if non-experts are not qualified to speak, how do you justify letting them vote? Not saying democracy is perfect, but apparently there was a thought that even if people are not experts, they might be able to inform themselves sufficiently to be able to de…

I assume it's the democracy bit that is your core premise. I'm not certain which country you live in. If you're in the U.S., you're not living in a democracy, you're living in a republic. There is a strong agenda by many people to turn it into a democracy, merely by saying it is one, and that is working, but by law, it's a republic. Democracies tend to disintegrate rapidly as the populace votes themselves beer and ci…

What is the specialty of the Republic? I guess there are laws that the zombie masses have to adhere to, but these laws were once upon a time also created by people.

I don't want to defend democracy, but it seems that it is not trivial to come up with a better system, and "don't give non-experts the permission to speak" won't cut it in my opinion. As soon as you start going down that road, a lot of other issues crop up.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#84

Post by Tichy »

robotrout wrote: post #40
radu_floricica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.

Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that…

I guess one problem with that is that it favors people with money too much. In principle I also believe in markets, but I think this is the point where the neo-capitalist logic fails.

As an example: I remember reading in "the armchair economist" how the author was angry at environmentalists because they denied him the right to pollute the environment if he was willing to shell out the money for it. He mentions that it might be worth 50$ per year to him to make sure lions don't go extinct, but not much more than that. Well maybe it would be worth 1000000$ per year to another person, but that person does not have the 1000000$ per year.

Tough luck one could say, but by that one would assume a certain definition of what is fair, and it is not obvious what consequences that definition would have in the long run.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#85

Post by koningrobot »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #76
jacoblyles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rational decision making always involves assessing the (probable) costs and benefits of potential actions. If the potential benefit is small and uncertain, and the cost is large and certain, it probably makes sense to wait and collect more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global... http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx

A friend and I once carried several large pieces of trash out of a wilderness area. We were sore, and tired, and our packs were heavy, and we were eager to go home and shower and eat some junk food. I'm glad we didn't make a rational decision.

You are glad based on how it made you feel, not on what impact it made. Most probably it didn't have much impact and you might as well have dropped the trash. Not that that's what I would've done, but saying we should trust our emotions on this big and costly problem makes no sense. Of course, throwing rationality out of the window by definition doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what your point is.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#86

Post by koningrobot »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #77
robotrout wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come just for this topic? In this utopia you describe, you neglect to explain what miraculous devices will produce this infinite energy supply. I think that's an important point that you left out. If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right?…

With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming denial website. The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water vapor due to…

I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening.

I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#87

Post by radu_floricica »

robotrout wrote: post #40
radu_floricica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.

Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that…

I didn't mean it's not :) Only that a downmod without comments leaves no room for discussion. Even if you agree with the downvoter, it's still not ok.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#88

Post by Tichy »

jacoblyles wrote: post #48
DaniFong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In business, war, governance, love, and the climate, people are forced to make decisions based on sorely incomplete data because time is of the essence, and it is all they're ever going to get. If likely exaggeration is to be called out, so too are those who assert that doubt should necessarily imply inaction.

It is weird that you point out a system with 10,000 year cycles as one where "time is of the essence".

I suppose if(!) man-made warming is happening, climate is not really a cycle anymore.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#89

Post by Tichy »

FictiveEvan wrote: post #62
ruby_roo wrote: post #12

I personally feel that it is better to err on the side of caution in regards to global warming. I say "feel" because I'm just not smart enough to navigate fact from fiction on this issue anymore. There's going to be extremes on both sides, but I don't see what we have to gain by not taking better care of our planet. Even if global warming is only partially manmade, shouldn't we do what we can to minimize the effect?…

I read of an interesting thought experiment once - a way to take the moral judgment out of the anthropogenic global warming debate. Imagine that there were never fossil fuels or elevated CO2 levels. Now imagine that scientists have (somehow) determined that the sun has suddenly increased its energy output in such a way that would exactly mimic on this imaginary planet, the proposed effect of elevated CO2 on our plane…

I think your example is useless. Of course predicting any kind of calamity would warrant spending money to reduce the damage (in the larger context, ie considering where spending the money will have the most effect). If a meteor would be about to land on your hometown, would you scramble to get to the other side of the planet? Of course you would, no matter if the meteor falls down because of natural causes or because of a giant magnet somebody build to attract it.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#90

Post by Tichy »

robotrout wrote: post #21
ruby_roo wrote: post #12

I personally feel that it is better to err on the side of caution in regards to global warming. I say "feel" because I'm just not smart enough to navigate fact from fiction on this issue anymore. There's going to be extremes on both sides, but I don't see what we have to gain by not taking better care of our planet. Even if global warming is only partially manmade, shouldn't we do what we can to minimize the effect?…

"I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side of caution" Let me try to help you see then. Even though it's extremely important that you prevent tooth decay, and even if you have a huge chunk of "Jolly Rancher" stuck between your teeth, it would be a non-optimal use of resources to use your last match as you were shivering on the side of a mountain with a broken leg, to dislodge the offending piece of cand…

" In the case of the warmists, since you are literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths with your demands of what is necessary, you better be damn certain you're right."

The same goes for you - if the warmists are right, then the non-warmists are stealing food from people's mouths (as farmland will be burned or flooded or whatever).

Post reply on HN