Global Warming Delusions • Hacker News Board

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#21

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:33 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.

What makes you think that a "reasonable" stance, as you've defined it, is correct? It seems to me that when you define reasonable as being middle-of-the-road on the consequences of global warming, you're really just using the word as a label to suppress ideas: http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html

Is that a troll? Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable?

The author expressed some very clear ideas. Are you trying to suppress them?

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#22

Post by quoderat » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:36 PM UTC

Riposte:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/murray-darli...

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#23

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:40 PM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #21

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that a "reasonable" stance, as you've defined it, is correct? It seems to me that when you define reasonable as being middle-of-the-road on the consequences of global warming, you're really just using the word as a label to suppress ideas: http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html

Is that a troll? Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable? The author expressed some very clear ideas. Are you trying to suppress them?

"Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable?"

Yes, I do. What is it that makes an article espousing a middle-of-the-road position on global warming reasonable, but an article that espouses taking immediate action to enact a carbon cap unreasonable?

Or are we expected to believe that the best course of action is the one that seems reasonable, whatever that means.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#24

Post by Retric » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:42 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #12

dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.

What makes you think that a "reasonable" stance, as you've defined it, is correct? It seems to me that when you define reasonable as being middle-of-the-road on the consequences of global warming, you're really just using the word as a label to suppress ideas: http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html

It's funny, but when I read this I kept thinking the author was a nut job with an agenda.

"Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate." Talk about a vague attack. It does not even say they actually exaggerate only some people feel it might be a good idea.

Whenever I hear someone discussing an issue like global worming without using any data I dismiss them. We could probably cut our emissions in half over 20 years with a with a CO2 tax around 1 cent per gallon of gas. Suggesting the only way to deal with the problem is wrecking our economy is just as insane as suggesting global worming is going to end life on earth. However, sounding like your taking the middle road does not make your analysis correct.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#25

Post by slackerIII » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:43 PM UTC

conflux0 wrote: post #18

ljlolel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A northern passage connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific would be a huge boon to international trade. Canada is already posturing itself to control a possible major new trade route.

Yeah that is true and addition to what you said arctic oil reserves would also be more accessible. But I still think that the damages to coastal economies such as the Netherlands from flooding would outweigh the benefits. My main point though was that the reasoning that the guy was using, a single example of anecdotal evidence, made me a little uncomfortable. Aside from that I think the other points he made were thou…

Just out of curiosity, how do you compare those 2 items( Benefits to global trade/oil reserves vs damage to the Netherlands)? Do you have some expertise in the area, or is that just a hunch?

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#26

Post by Retric » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:46 PM UTC

slackerIII wrote: post #25

conflux0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that is true and addition to what you said arctic oil reserves would also be more accessible. But I still think that the damages to coastal economies such as the Netherlands from flooding would outweigh the benefits. My main point though was that the reasoning that the guy was using, a single example of anecdotal evidence, made me a little uncomfortable. Aside from that I think the other points he made were thou…

Just out of curiosity, how do you compare those 2 items( Benefits to global trade/oil reserves vs damage to the Netherlands)? Do you have some expertise in the area, or is that just a hunch?

The several orders of magnitude difference between the value of stuff built near sea level vs the cost of global trade suggest one will not pay for the other. But there are more in depth analysis out there.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#27

Post by slackerIII » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:50 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #26

slackerIII wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, how do you compare those 2 items( Benefits to global trade/oil reserves vs damage to the Netherlands)? Do you have some expertise in the area, or is that just a hunch?

The several orders of magnitude difference between the value of stuff built near sea level vs the cost of global trade suggest one will not pay for the other. But there are more in depth analysis out there.

Humanity has frequently built dams/drainage systems for several orders of magnitude less money than the value of the items protected by the dam/ drainage systems.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#28

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:52 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #14

conflux0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.

A little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.

Well, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately.

Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"?

You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we let you. When you ignore what everybody knows, that the climate is warming regardless of human contribution, in the endless climate cycle that's 4 billion years old, we let you. You've defined the game to be, humans are causing extra global warming (you leave out the 'extra') and we let you. We've handicapped ourselves quite severely in this 'debate', so that you'll at least play with us. That you take advantage of this handicapping with not even a "thank you" is what is intellectually dishonest.

So, this author makes the claim that there may be benefits to warmer climate. He's playing your game. He's bowing to your religion, by saying the words "warmer climate". But you're not happy. It's intellectually dishonest.

Every action has costs and benefits. Obviously there would be benefits from a warmer climate. It's intellectually dishonest for you to claim otherwise. Do they outweigh the costs? I honestly don't know. We're a global community, right? A longer growing season in the temperate latitudes vs a shorter growing season in the tropical. Does this result in more food or less? I don't know (although I suspect it does). More people running their AC in the south vs less people running their heaters in the north. Is this a power savings or a power sink? (I suspect this ones goes to you, as heating is more efficient than cooling). There's a ton of analysis that could be done here, before you know the answer to this question. For you to just say "intellectually dishonest" without considering any of it is perhaps a result of your bias.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#29

Post by TomOfTTB » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:53 PM UTC

david927 wrote: post #20

The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad. There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world.

The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outright.

As far as I can tell this article, in a very HN way, is just trying to lead people who have bought the hysteria back into a rational mindset by showing the reader another side exists.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#30

Post by yters » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 5:55 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #14

conflux0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.

A little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.

No, the most intellectually dishonest argument you can imagine is to claim something is maximally intellectually dishonest when you know full well it is not, because you are being dishonest about the very nature of intellectual dishonesty.