The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson • Hacker News Board

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#91

Post by Tichy » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 11:56 AM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #50

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?…

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

Lomborg's claims rest on the assumption that the benefits are small and uncertain. I remember him citing "heat deaths" as one of the worst predicted outcomes of global warming. "Warmists" would certainly disagree that this is the worst thing to expect. I don't know the proper name for this argumentation technique, in my opinion Lomborg creates a kind of strawman, but that is not quite the right word. He says "look here, heat deaths are a non-issue, so global warming is a non-issue", when really heat-deaths are not the main issue of global warming.

You are of course right about rational decision making, but the estimates of the risks diverge between the groups, so they arrive at different decisions.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#92

Post by samas » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 12:53 PM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #69

samas wrote: post #56

Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as the loss of coastal land as sea level rises. Natural systems are fragile, and we continue to poke and push them, with damages (for example, loss of biodiversity) that are not clearly obvious and that are in many cases simply irreparable. I won't belabor this point, al…

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?…

"Did you come just for this topic?"

To comment in just this thread? No, I will probably make other posts. I lurk, and have been doing so for at least a year--so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I just felt like sharing my ideas and (limited) knowledge as they relate to this topic, that is all.

"In this utopia you describe"

Utopia, as in, the part where I describe the use of desalinized water to irrigate crops, or pumps to keep sea level rise at bay? Seems pretty feasible.

"If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right?"

Are you implying that every dollar that goes to renewable energy R&D would instead go towards 'alleviating hurt'? Could I instead claim that every dollar for renewable energy R&D will come from our defense budget, leaving our 'alleviating hurt' budgets untouched? Now, are either of those reasonable assumptions?

"Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites"

I didn't cut and paste from any web site. I synthesized my own ideas. Well, except for the first two paragraphs, which came from the available literature/news sources I have ingested over the years. So, if you've read the content from the first two paragraphs on other websites, did the information concern you? Did it prompt you to do your own investigation into the available literature?

"Everything else is just philosophy."

Everything besides what the website you included says? Or parts/all of my comment? You've confused me with this statement.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#93

Post by samas » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 1:08 PM UTC

koningrobot wrote: post #86

thaumaturgy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate.

"there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means"

Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue research in those fields, and some happen to research climate.

Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other environmental/biological/chemical phenomena.

"It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells."

I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#94

Post by Alex3917 » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 1:12 PM UTC

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…

You're reading me correctly. My claims are basically that:

A) I think that very few people actually believe that global warming could only be caused by anthropogenic forces.

B) I've never actually heard anyone claim that global warming could only be caused by anthropogenic forces, so if people are even saying that then they are in a small minority.

(The difference between A and B is that there may be people who say global warming can only be anthropogenic for political reasons even if they don't believe it. However, I'm saying that even the people who say this are a very small minority.)

Now clearly your quote supports your claim that Mann is saying this, at least in the abstract. However, my guess is that he's saying this more for political reasons than scientific ones. Which IMHO is reasonable, considering that implementing a legally binding cap on carbon emissions is the best course of action considering what we know today.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#95

Post by anamax » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 1:51 PM UTC

cgranade wrote: post #53

anamax wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and inaction on climate change. Really? If we spent $20B on global warming you'd go away happy? > is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species Interestingly enough, if you read the cost estimates from the advocates, it's reasonably cheap to deal with the problem after it occurs, at le…

Of course it'd take more than $20 billion over the span of our lifetimes. I meant that within the context of the Iraq War spending, diverting even a few of those 600 billions of dollars could have made a very positive impact and would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue. I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing e…

> would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue.

Actually, he wasn't. He didn't do what you want, but that's a very different than nothing. Are you going with ignorance or "I was trying to emphasize my point"?

> I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change

The mainstream folks who want money for climate change disagree. They want hundreds of billions of dollars.

If they're wrong, that's a huge deal. Let's see some details supporting your "chump change" estimate. Are they wrong?

> Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

Catastrophe is short-hand for "very expensive", so you're merely making a "numbers-free" economic argument.

The AGW folks have predicted the costs of "catastrophe" and "measures to avoid". (The latter are surely low because they don't significantly affect the predicted climate change.)

Once again, if they're wrong, that's a big deal.

Let's see the details.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#96

Post by dmv » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 3:03 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #88

jacoblyles wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We may adjust the period, but I do not think people are suggesting that we're making an irreversible change to the planet? Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools. The million-year average temperature of this planet is mostly governed by distance to the closest star. Is there much discussion about our planet getting closer to the sun? I don't pay much attention. If it was, I would very much listen to Dr. Dyson. Our fear and panic is about an irreversible change to the planet as we know it -- those complex mechanisms may not be pleasant for current life on the planet (ask the Dinosaurs, or anything living through an Ice Age). Environmentalism is mostly about conservation and continuity of the present biosphere. The planet will be fine, the planet will continue to have a climate, the climate will continue to cycle.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#97

Post by Tichy » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 3:24 PM UTC

dmv wrote: post #96

Tichy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We may adjust the period, but I do not think people are suggesting that we're making an irreversible change to the planet? Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools. The million-year average temperature of this planet is mostly governed by distance to the closest star. Is there much discussion about our planet getting closer to the sun? I don't pay much attention. If it was, I would very much…

"Planet heats up, various complex mechanisms kick in, planet cools."

The "various complex mechanisms" are precisely what people are discussing and might not be well enough understood.

But sure, eventually the planet will cool again - at the latest when the sun dies.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#98

Post by dschobel » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 3:39 PM UTC

You have to admire Dyson's blunt honesty:

If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He’s a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don’t have a Ph.D. He’s published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven’t. By the public standard he’s qualified to talk and I’m not. But I do because I think I’m right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it’s true my career doesn’t depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it’s more a matter of judgement than knowledge.

I especially love the point about Hansen's career hinging on his theory being borne out which seems to be a general issue with science which crosses over into the mainstream consciousness.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#99

Post by koningrobot » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 3:41 PM UTC

samas wrote: post #93

koningrobot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate. "there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means" Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental s…

I certainly didn't mean to write off climate science or scientists. My point was that I don't know how to distinguish the science from the propaganda, except in obvious cases. I find it hard to believe that other armchair scientists can be so sure of themselves. They could be right, but to me its mostly a sign of propaganda.

So I don't know who the climate scientists are. Lots of parties are making wild claims and saying science is on their side. Take http://realclimate.org/ for instance. Is this real climate science? I mean, anyone could put up a website with the words "climate science from climate scientists". How does one tell?

Though I think you're right that peer-reviewed literature gives an indication.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#100

Post by dschobel » Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 3:48 PM UTC

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #8

1gor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, general public needs to learn about his integrity, erudition and impeccable scientific standing. This is important because Dyson's opponents as a rule try some sort of character assassination instead of sticking to the subject matter.

Still, the writing is horrible.

The article is more of a character study and description of modern science when it crosses into politics / pop-culture.

Dyson's view is simple: he thinks the doom & gloom predictions of those who are forecasting the end of life within the next hundred years is simply not borne out by the facts.