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

Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 237 posts

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#121

Post by refurb »

gnaritas wrote: post #103
steven2012 wrote: post #30

I absolutely don't believe that human-created CO2 emissions cause global warming. However, I consider myself a staunch environmentalist. I believe we should be doing whatever we can to control pollution. It sickens me that factories pump out pollution, that we can barely eat fish anymore because of all the garbage and poisons we pump into our oceans. I think we need very strict controls on every form of pollution as…

It's no longer a matter of belief, the evidence is in, the overwhelmingly vast majority of climatologists say you're wrong; end of debate. Now it's time to do something about it.

I think that's a terrible idea.

For hundreds of years, people thought stress and food caused ulcers. It was scientific fact and if you doubted it, you'd likely be labelled a crackpot. Until a scientist in Australia proved ulcers were caused by bacteria.

So consensus was wrong. Very wrong.

I'd prefer it if people kept questioning everything. How else do we push forward our knowledge?

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#122

Post by vonmoltke »

rybosome wrote: post #78
lmm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. Bullshit. Whatever the focus was, vested interests would have funded opposition and that's what kept people divided.

Hear, hear. The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a fina…

> The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate.

The oil industry didn't give a shit about whether or not TEL was put in gasoline. It was the auto companies who put it in there in the first place, and the auto and chemical companies who fought its removal.

> It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a financial interest in proving global warming to be true; this is in spite of the fact that the fossil-fuel industry has already been caught putting out junk science that justified poisoning humans to protect their profit.

It blows my mind that people judge scientific work based on its funding source over its content and merits. Not saying its irrelevant, but good science is good science and bad science is bad science, regardless of who paid for it.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#123

Post by Sailfish »

hackuser wrote: post #117
nmridul wrote: post #12

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.

> There always will be a debate on global warming As long as the denialists are well-funded: Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing...

Oh, puhleaseeee! The Warmists are most well-funded funded there is, getting trillions of tax payer dollars for extremely lucrative jobs.

If the guide is based on "follow the money" the Warmists will lose by orders of magnitudes.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#124

Post by refurb »

jpadkins wrote: post #92
astrodust wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most nutritional claims are based on pretty thin evidence and even more scant data. The climate researchers are able to dig back literal millions of years and chart their findings.

> The climate researchers are able to dig back literal millions of years and chart their findings. sorry, this is pretty funny. Do you know what the data those charts of millions of years are based on? models based on thin evidence and scant data. We are talking like 10 ice cores and 5 trees will swing the data wildly. I am not a denier (CO2 causes some warming!) but this comment was kinda funny.

I'm surprised you're being down voted.

Remember the "global warming hiatus" that happened over the past 15 years? The one that most climate scientists accepted? Well, it looks like the models we're wrong. Tweak a few model input and "oops!" it's actually been warming the last 15 years.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#125

Post by sawwit »

robk wrote: post #102
rybosome wrote: post #65

When speaking with people who do not agree with me on the correctness or urgency of global warming, this is the argument I traditionally make: let's examine the worst-case scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the science, taking it seriously is a logical choice. The plausible worst-case scenario of charging ahead with measures to combat climate change isn't actually that bad, not to mention the anci…

Isn't this the same as Pascals Wager then? We should pray to God since the upside result is worth the downside cost.

An obvious difference is that we do have scientific models of global climate change that give us at least some evidence, but we lack any such information for the case of the existence of a god.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#128

Post by icanhackit »

robk wrote: post #102
rybosome wrote: post #65

When speaking with people who do not agree with me on the correctness or urgency of global warming, this is the argument I traditionally make: let's examine the worst-case scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the science, taking it seriously is a logical choice. The plausible worst-case scenario of charging ahead with measures to combat climate change isn't actually that bad, not to mention the anci…

Isn't this the same as Pascals Wager then? We should pray to God since the upside result is worth the downside cost.

The problem with Pascal's Wager: which God and thus which set of rituals and rules do you follow? You've got quite a selection to choose from. You go from having a simple Yes/No choice to having thousands of choices.

In the case of action against climate change, the downsides of doing something are minimal compared to the downsides of inaction. It's a much more binary choice than what Pascal put forward.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#129

Post by mikeash »

nmridul wrote: post #12

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.

If pollution is your focus but not global warming, then you'll focus more on scrubbing technologies and better combustion and the like. A lot of stuff can burn extremely cleanly now if you ignore CO2, and the only reading to look at CO2 is climate change. It's not important at all as a pollutant otherwise.

I also doubt that people would be unified on pollution if not for global warming. In my experience, the people who doubt climate change also downplay pollution in general. It's largely the same people saying global warming is a liberal hoax, and complaining about how the government says they can't dump used motor oil down the storm drains, can't buy freon anymore, cars have to come with catalytic converters, and such.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#130

Post by vlehto »

gnaritas wrote: post #110
amalag wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.

If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.

It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority.

It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Post reply on HN