Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 • Hacker News Board

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#131

Post by acqq » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:08 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #127

adrianN wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I let the experts battle it out and then look at the scientific consensus. I trust experts in all areas of my life, because I don't have the time to become an expert myself. Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're a politician and your task is to ensure that future generations have a chance to live a more prosperous life.

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because…

> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future.

Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#132

Post by baq » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:08 AM UTC

eitland wrote: post #100

Fricken wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've known about the greenhouse effect and it's threat potential for nearly 2 centuries. Exxon just helped add to a growing body of evidence that we ignore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

> and it's threat potential for nearly 2 centuries. Did you mean decades?

this article

https://medium.com/@cimuir/we-ve-been-talking-about-climate-...

has a picture of a newspaper commenting on the possibility, dated July 17th, 1912.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#133

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:14 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #130

civility wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because…

The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.

Yeah, in the absence of information or understanding, a lot of people like to imagine the worst. I guess that's a good defensive instinct.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#134

Post by dTal » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:21 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #124

ptah wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted

I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt an…

>However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.

Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#135

Post by agent008t » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:26 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #124

ptah wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted

I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt an…

It would be really interesting to know if the research/models have been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#136

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #131

civility wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because…

> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's b…

> Then you obviously don't know basic physics.

Ugh, if you're going to just attack me, why not jump to the big guns and call me a shill for the oil company or some other cliche.

> The average temperature is much easier to predict

If you do enough averaging over a long enough period, this can be true. I mean, we can all tell the average position of a double pendulum. I'm guessing you think 1, 10, or 100 years is enough time to average temperature. Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings.

> I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years.

You can believe anything you want, but I doubt you used the scientific method to get there.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#137

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

dTal wrote: post #134

civility wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt an…

>However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth. Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.

Heh, you got me there.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#138

Post by akvadrako » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:33 AM UTC

logjammin wrote: post #84

modzu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there has been plenty of genuine scepticism from within the scientific community (as there should be). what has happened is that it has become politicized such that the science is suffering for fear of being labeled a heretic. much of the research is published via the intergovernmental panel on climate change; well it's right there in the title. none of this is to say that there aren't also entities pushing propagand…

Example of investigators whose work has suffered for fear of being labeled a heretic?

One of the more famous cases recently was Peter Ridd. He just won a court case against his university after being sacked for questioning the climate consensus.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#139

Post by Gupie » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #127

adrianN wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I let the experts battle it out and then look at the scientific consensus. I trust experts in all areas of my life, because I don't have the time to become an expert myself. Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're a politician and your task is to ensure that future generations have a chance to live a more prosperous life.

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because…

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#140

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:38 AM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #135

civility wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt an…

It would be really interesting to know if the research/models have been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.

> and have a pro-economic growth bias

Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell.

Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate problem.