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

Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#111

Post by kevinskii »

lifeformed wrote: post #82
rfinney wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "attacking the motive" a logical fallacy? https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallac...

Saying something is biased might be a fallacy in a debate, but not in statistics. In a complex topic, where the data is fuzzy and misrepresentation is easy to do and harder to detect, you must consider biases in your sources. An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc…

This is not an accurate characterization of the debate. "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue.

If you want to be skeptical of the skeptics, fine. We all should be. But the notion that the bias is one-sided is silly.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#112

Post by leetcrew »

rayiner wrote: post #88
joncrane wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't you use MARC?

MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the no…

also MARC and Amtrak have different endpoints in DC. even though it's more expensive, Amtrak may put an arbitrary person closer to where they need to be.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#113

Post by lifeformed »

leetcrew wrote: post #94
lifeformed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is biased might be a fallacy in a debate, but not in statistics. In a complex topic, where the data is fuzzy and misrepresentation is easy to do and harder to detect, you must consider biases in your sources. An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc…

I'm certainly convinced at this point that climate change is a real thing that we should be concerned about, but that's only because I have (to the best of my ability as a cs person) critically examined the position taken by the climate scientists. no one is immune to bias and misaligned incentives, especially on contentious political issues, and especially in fields where your entire job depends on government fundin…

I'm not saying we should accept it all unquestioningly, but I feel like that ship has sailed a long time ago. As a society, we should be taking action yesterday, not still asking if it's real or not. The only reason why we are still doing it is because of malicious high-influence individuals holding everyone back, trying to squeeze every last drop out of society.

Scientists and academics indeed have their own biases, but when you look at the big picture of the distribution of peoples' motivations, very clear patterns emerge that scream out: there is a lot of bad-faith, deliberate disinformation out there, and we need to take that into account. As rational people, it's tempting to just take arguments at face value and focus on the information. But this is all taking place in a larger context where psychology and game theory play a role. Impartiality is exploitable - tying up people's judgement is just a victory for the status quo.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#114

Post by kevinskii »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #104
pdonis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy We have no way of knowing because no predictions were made for periods of time prior to now, so we have nothing to compare with the data. The dire predictions of rapid rise in the future are based on the future predictions of climate models being correct, but the models are already known to over-predict future warming. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-…

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry > Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defend…

I'm not sure if you're aware, but "denier" is a loaded term that is used to equate the questioning of climate science with Holocaust denial. It has no place in a civilized discussion.

As for Climate Audit, the Wegman Report, and Judith Curry: Maybe try reading one of them sometime. I think you'll find that they are nothing like their detractors try to portray them to be.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#115

Post by rayiner »

leetcrew wrote: post #112
rayiner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the no…

also MARC and Amtrak have different endpoints in DC. even though it's more expensive, Amtrak may put an arbitrary person closer to where they need to be.

They both stop in Union Station?

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#116

Post by recusancy »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108
freehunter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers…

> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)."

There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#117

Post by njarboe »

whatshisface wrote: post #64
munk-a wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have d…

Companies can use their political influence to get other companies to change. This isn't happening today because everyone on Earth is happier when electricity and gas are cheaper, from the poorest consumer to the wealthiest executive.

If the most vocal people shouting about the problem of climate change were advocating for the mass adoption of nuclear power, huge money into fusion power research, and investment in the R&D of removing CO2 from the air instead of advocating for reduced power usage, transportation restrictions (mass transit), and human population decline as the solutions to "climate change", US society would be a lot more likely to get behind doing something about it.

Using climate change as a club to push ideological policies did not work and now has us in a real pickle. The other side did not fight back by advocating for better solutions to the CO2 pollution problem but instead just decided to ignore reality as an easier short-term tactic.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#118

Post by njarboe »

lifeformed wrote: post #68
makerofspoons wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not the CEI's (Competitive Enterprise Institute) who distributed your figure. They have a long history of spreading disinformation, going back to the fight over tobacco policy: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise...

I never understood why "climate skeptics" don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some "rebuttal" against climate change, the source comes back to a conservative think tank or oil company. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

I never understood why "climate change" advocates don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some action advocated to "stop climate change", the source comes back to some progressive group. They are always advocating some pet progressive agenda like mass transit, human population reduction, or the reduction of living standards by forcing energy use reductions. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

We need to find ways to reduce CO2 emissions that will improve the lives of people instead of making them worse. How about massive R&D into nuclear power to make it safer, education about radiation so that people are not so irrationally afraid of it, fusion power research, a carbon tax and research into how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that, if we can get cheaper power, we can use it to fix the problem. The Tesla Roadster and the Model S is how you get people to switch to electric cars, not at huge gas tax (they tried that in Europe, btw).

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#119

Post by lifeformed »

kevinskii wrote: post #111
lifeformed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is biased might be a fallacy in a debate, but not in statistics. In a complex topic, where the data is fuzzy and misrepresentation is easy to do and harder to detect, you must consider biases in your sources. An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc…

This is not an accurate characterization of the debate. "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue. If you want to be skeptical of the skeptics, fine. We all should be. But the notion that the bias is one-sided is silly.

Climate change science isn't the result of a small cabal of academics, it's a vast interdisciplinary study involving all fields.

Bias isn't a binary proposition: it's not that since both sides have some bias, they should be equally distrusted. It's that one side has 0.02 bias and the other side has 0.6 bias, so weigh accordingly.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#120

Post by kevinskii »

lifeformed wrote: post #119
kevinskii wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an accurate characterization of the debate. "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue. If you want to be skeptical of the skeptics, fine. We all should be. But the notion that the bias is one-sided is silly.

Climate change science isn't the result of a small cabal of academics, it's a vast interdisciplinary study involving all fields. Bias isn't a binary proposition: it's not that since both sides have some bias, they should be equally distrusted. It's that one side has 0.02 bias and the other side has 0.6 bias, so weigh accordingly.

Study of the history and effects of climate change is indeed a vast interdisciplinary science. But the study of cause is much more narrowly focused.

Of those scientists who have backgrounds that would qualify them to contribute in this particular area, the consensus is not at all clear. But the ones who seem most concerned about rapid AGW appear to be those with skin in the game.

Post reply on HN