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

Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

apps.seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#121

Post by patcon »

zeteo wrote: post #103
revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the…

I find it unfortunate that rationalists are not really allowed to get as angry and emotional as their "opponents". Those on the other side of the debate get to, in their ignorance, harp about the human side of their view on economics, or the spiritual side of certain societal decisions.

Rationalists are allowed to get emotional, and it's not a detriment to their cause when they do. While not every rationalist will, we need emotional people to make emotional responses, or we lose ground in these debates. We don't need to be calculated about it, but we shouldn't scorn it -- that's all.

Not picking on you, OP -- just expressing a gripe that I have.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#122

Post by graeme »

indefatigable wrote: post #115
graeme wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individ…

What situation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic ocean acidification?

I could equally ask, how do you falsify the theory of 'things continue to be fairly ok'. I'm not trying to be facetious.

I'm not sure absolute falsification is meaningful with this kind of prediction. We only have one system, very hard to falsify.

We can falsify elements of evidence which suggest one planetary state over another. That's about it.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#123

Post by lutusp »

indefatigable wrote: post #117
lutusp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy. I hope you aren't talking about me. Population growth is the problem, but there is no solution, at least not one that civilized people would or should accept. Maybe you should read my first post again. I don't wave my hands at population as though control is an easily applied remedy -- I state it as an insolubl…

OK that's good to hear. But read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

> ... read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

In the above post I did explicitly point out that there are no political solutions to the population problem -- I called them disasters, and eugenics is certainly on the list of all-time political disasters.

The reason is simple -- nature is smarter than us. When evolution works, when nature produces something remarkable, it's not because we're smart, it's because nature is.

We're faced with a problem that's easy to state and impossible to solve. Virtually anything we can think to try would make the problem worse. We've proven that with our total mishandling of the antibiotic issue. We now know what can go wrong, we have the required information, but we don't seem to be able to craft an effective remedy.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc...

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#124

Post by graeme »

zeteo wrote: post #118
graeme wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individ…

"It's warming" is not falsifiable because any immediate developments can always be written off. An actual scientific statement is on the lines of "using methodology X, the recorded temperature next year will be between Y and Z". The climate models were scientific in this respect, but they did not predict events accurately. So the scientific certainty is simply not there, and it's all down to subjective interpretation…

Hmm, perhaps it isn't falsifiable by that standard. Only the evidence used in support is falsifiable, but the theory itself couldn't be falsified.

How could you falsify the idea "things will continue to be fine"? I'm trying to assess if falsification is a good standard to use.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#125

Post by zeteo »

patcon wrote: post #121
zeteo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the…

I find it unfortunate that rationalists are not really allowed to get as angry and emotional as their "opponents". Those on the other side of the debate get to, in their ignorance, harp about the human side of their view on economics, or the spiritual side of certain societal decisions. Rationalists are allowed to get emotional, and it's not a detriment to their cause when they do. While not every rationalist will, w…

Rationalism is more about mental hygiene than any specific beliefs. I don't think it precludes emotion, but it definitely involves being aware of how undisciplined emotion can drive you away from actual truth: confirmation bias, tribalism etc. You can have rationalists on both sides of a debate, and I actually think society benefits a lot from such discussion. After all, each side is usually wrong about some things.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#126

Post by zeteo »

graeme wrote: post #124
zeteo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's warming" is not falsifiable because any immediate developments can always be written off. An actual scientific statement is on the lines of "using methodology X, the recorded temperature next year will be between Y and Z". The climate models were scientific in this respect, but they did not predict events accurately. So the scientific certainty is simply not there, and it's all down to subjective interpretation…

Hmm, perhaps it isn't falsifiable by that standard. Only the evidence used in support is falsifiable, but the theory itself couldn't be falsified. How could you falsify the idea "things will continue to be fine"? I'm trying to assess if falsification is a good standard to use.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Sorry, a bit in a rush but that's the main idea. Expecting no specific change is the scientific default.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#127

Post by b1daly »

lutusp wrote: post #123
indefatigable wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK that's good to hear. But read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

> ... read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument. In the above post I did explicitly point out that there are no political solutions to the population problem -- I called them disasters, and eugenics is certainly on the list of all-time political disasters. The reason is simple -- nature is smarter than us. When evolution works, when nature produces some…

Jesus man, nature, at least in the context discussed here as evolution, is not smart. It's just description of what happens. I've heard of no convincing explanation of natural selection that describes it as an intentional force. On the contrary, nature is about as dumb as a rock.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#128

Post by Steko »

indefatigable wrote: post #112
anthonyarroyo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exqueeze me?

When someone says they have the right to dictate not only how much energy I use, but also where that energy comes from, I call it fascism.

Then you should also call it fascism when the pollution from your energy use harms others.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#129

Post by DanBC »

Steko wrote: post #128
indefatigable wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone says they have the right to dictate not only how much energy I use, but also where that energy comes from, I call it fascism.

Then you should also call it fascism when the pollution from your energy use harms others.

Ignore (and down vote) the trolls.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#130

Post by b1daly »

pilom wrote: post #63
DanBC wrote: post #16

What can I, as an individual with no money nor power, do to help stop this? I can reduce my energy use as far as possible. Apart from the online stuff I'm pretty low CO2. I can reduce, reuse, and recycle. (I need to get better at that.) But what else can I do?

Decrease your transportation needs. Running a gasoline vehicle for 1 second produces more CO2 than turning off all of the zombie loads in your house. Move closer to work so your commute is shorter and you'll cut your carbon footprint more than any other thing you could do.

Over what time!
Post reply on HN