Global Warming Delusions • Hacker News Board

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#51

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 8:01 PM UTC

calambrac wrote: post #47

robotrout wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I fee…

It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance.

You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard.

You say I should spend $1000 as my share of the cost to paint a picture of a snow capped mountain on the ugly building next door. Everybody in the neighborhood will benefit from having such a beautiful mural, so what is my problem with coughing up the money? I would probably just waste it on fixing the transmission and brakes on my car anyway.

It is not your resources that you are spending. It is MY resources you are spending. I choose to donate them to drilling wells for waterless villages in Africa. Who are you to tell me that I'm a bastard for wanting to do that instead of your project?

Don't give me this moralistic sermon about greedy people demanding proof of a problem before coughing up the funds to fix it, when they should just smile and give the funds because it's "a good thing anyway".

I reject this 100 times more than I reject somebody who is just too lazy to learn the true facts of the issue. Give me people honestly trying to reach an intellectual meeting of the minds any day over this sort of moralistic bullying.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#52

Post by dfsdfsdsfdsf » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 8:07 PM UTC

Start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#53

Post by grandalf » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 8:19 PM UTC

today one out of three kids fears an environmental apocalypse. Fears about global warming (and probably visions of a fiery inferno) are what kids' nightmares are made of these days.

Why not just focus on dirty water and smelly air? That is reason enough, in my opinion, to be responsible and forward thinking about the environment.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#54

Post by greggraham » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 8:20 PM UTC

calambrac wrote: post #47

robotrout wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I fee…

The article agrees with you, "many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy." He is not saying we shouldn't take action, but that we shouldn't cause a panic by exaggerating the facts.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#55

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 8:21 PM UTC

david927 wrote: post #48

robotrout wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm sure it's billions of people! I mean, why not, right? If you're going to pull numbers out of the air, it seems reasonable that they be large ones! I bet you're right and 1/3rd of the population of the earth will be displaced. (Or were there more billions than just 2 in your scenario?) You should know that even the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly. It woul…

The number 'billions' depends on how high the water rises. Bangladesh and Indonesia alone are 400 million whose population are at risk. >the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly The most crazy/aggressive models from the 1970's said we would lose half the Arctic sea ice by 2050. We hit that point two years ago. If multiple sea shelves collapse, it will indeed come as…

> We hit that point two years ago

Come on guys. Why do you say these things? It's literally 5 seconds away in a new browser tab. http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+...

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#56

Post by graphene » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 9:03 PM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #51

calambrac wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that. I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I fee…

It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance. You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard. You sa…

In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the extreme, you can think of cases where I think society should be able to exert influence on an individual's resource-spending behavior. Say (for the sake of argument) that we are neighbours and you decide to dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Even though the chance that I will experience negative consequences from your actions is not strictly 1 (radioactivity being a statistical phenomenon after all), and that even if I do fall ill, you could point out that I can't prove it was radiation from YOUR pile that got to me, wouldn't you agree that society would be justified in preventing your waste dumping activities simply because it has a high enough chance of causing harm to others? I don't mean to equate the consequences of global warming to those of radiation sickness or cancer, but I hope you agree that both activities (emitting CO2 and dumping nuclear waste in your back yard) have nonzero, non-100% probability of causing harm, and at some point, society should intervene.

Consider another example: what if we wake up tomorrow and all the computer models have vastly improved; showing in intricate detail the consequences of every ton of CO2 emitted in terms of rising temperature and sea level, changing rainfall patterns, etc., and that the economic and social costs worldwide are considerable. Assume also that the counter-anecdotes (such as those in the WSJ article) are explained by the models. Assume finally that the models show that the influence on your personal life is minimal. I'm curious as to what you'd do; would you try to decrease your emissions voluntarily, or would you support government efforts to turn things around, or would you continue as before; they are your resources to consume after all..? Would you perhaps even start trying to convince others to minimize their emissions as well, or would that fall under moralistic bullying?

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#57

Post by robotrout » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 9:32 PM UTC

graphene wrote: post #56

robotrout wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources. That is not your function, and for you to look down your nose at me for disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance. You say I should spend $250K to pad the walls and floor of my home with hypoallergenic 4 inch thick foam because then my kid won't get hurt when he falls. If I point out that I'd rather spend the $250K on his college, than I'm a bastard. You sa…

In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the extreme, you can think of cases where I think society should be able to exert influence on an individual's resource-spending behavior. Say (for the sake of argument) that we are neighbours and you decide to dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Even though th…

I quit dumping toxic waste years ago. I can be persuaded by real science and economic analysis. Let me know when you have some.

It's very acceptable for proven causes of proven societal ills to be handled by a consensus of that society. It's not acceptable to stampede, bully, exaggerate, and mislead to cause something to happen, just because in your opinion, it would be best.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#58

Post by cia_plant » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 9:53 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #29

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 outri…

We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad!

There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period.

Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWa...

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#59

Post by grandalf » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 10:25 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #53

today one out of three kids fears an environmental apocalypse. Fears about global warming (and probably visions of a fiery inferno) are what kids' nightmares are made of these days. Why not just focus on dirty water and smelly air? That is reason enough, in my opinion, to be responsible and forward thinking about the environment.

wow I'm curious why this was modded down... does anyone have an argument for why an extreme, apocalyptic message is necessary or helpful? (other than "well it worked for Christianity!")

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#60

Post by DanielBMarkham » Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 10:46 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #46

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard. That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the foc…

So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.

And it might come quite suddenly whether we cause it or not. And it might do the opposite of what we expect.

Looking back through the geologic record, the climate has done all sorts of interesting things -- all without our help.

As a general observation not connected to the parent, the use of cellular automata techniques in modeling is really very much in its infancy. I'm really surprised that posters to a hacker board wouldn't already know that.