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

Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#11

Post by TrevorJ »

SamAtt wrote: post #9
pjkundert wrote: post #2

> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act? Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?

For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme. The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing our impact on the planet all the way throu…

I think the likelihood that one of our 'solutions' creates a greater problem than we had in the first place needs to be factored into the risk/reward analysis.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#12

Post by Retric »

jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

seem to not want to debate the topic much

Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left?

At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old.

PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#13

Post by nollidge »

jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.

Sure, if you're just arguing about science. Once words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" are thrown about, however, we're not talking about the science anymore.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#14

Post by mlinsey »

quoderat wrote: post #7
TriinT wrote: post #4

Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next? Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and…

Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70…

I'm not a climate scientist (though a big problem with this issue is it requires lots of non-climate scientists to formulate opinions about climate science), but this post definitely doesn't deserve to be downvoted for linking scientific research, even with the commentary in the last paragraph.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#15

Post by quoderat »

TriinT wrote: post #10
quoderat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70…

Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back. "None of it sways you" -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.

If my point is correct, and the evidence, facts and data all align with it, then anything else I say is irrelevant.

That's the problem, though -- people make these decisions based on emotions, vested interests, or what they wish were so, rather than the real evidence. If global warming/climate change is harmful to capitalist greed (and I don't think all capitalism is greed, or vice versa), then it prima facie must be incorrect, in some folks' view.

Not saying you are guilty of that, but so very many are.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#16

Post by mlinsey »

TriinT wrote: post #10
quoderat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70…

Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back. "None of it sways you" -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.

Why are your attacks on Krugman more constructive than the GP's attacks on you? Because Krugman isn't posting here?

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#17

Post by gabrielroth »

hvs wrote: post #6

Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and…

If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just asserting.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#18

Post by gort »

jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

"I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much."

Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creationism seriously, for instance.

ETA: Robin Hanson once wrote about this effect: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.h...

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#19

Post by nazgulnarsil »

Retric wrote: post #12
jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

seem to not want to debate the topic much Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left? At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the globa…

right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#20

Post by ramidarigaz »

TriinT wrote: post #8
jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Underst…

The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it.

About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.

Post reply on HN