141–150 of 340 posts
Dear HN crowd, I bet a fair share of us belongs to the top 10%, please reduce your emissions.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 prob…
If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth." No. There are no even remotely plausible scenarios in which most life (say, all mammals, to pick something specific) go extinct due to climate change caused by human CO2 emissions. If you think that, you have been lied to - and have not been smart enough to recognize the lies.
Can we agree that it's an existential threat to technological civilization? And isn't that enough to conclude that urgent action is needed?
I think we can agree there is a some risk of higher costs if climate change is ignored.
Most likely it’ll be beneficial though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and lower tax base. No goverment can afford that. > Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2. I believe…
> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes. It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.
There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's your gripe with "climate change" being in the name of the IPCC?
sorry it wasnt clear from my comment, but mainly that a governmental panel == politicized, and also that the IPCC reports to the UNFCCC, whose mission is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system". in other words, it assumes the hypothesis that the science should be testing
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…
Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?
The use of that number is the kind of outright political manipulation that's so prevalent in this debate.
Keep in mind we aren't even talking about scientifically demonstrated conclusions, we are talking about speculated conclusions. The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study.
What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cause we don't know. Once I realized that and started understanding how the climate models work and saw how much interpretation and fitting and vague language was being used to obstruct the actual science, I realized that worrying about the environment was more rational. There is very very little actually demonstrated science in the climate debate it's almost entirely ideological and used by politicians to gain more power and create something to rally up voters around. In 10 years the climate catastrophism we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and see.
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…
Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"A lot" maybe, but I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem. Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
Are future generations worth more than current? Should we militarily prohibit poor countries from using fossil fuels which they use to better their lives?
You can say worst outcomes with other things too, meteor, nuclear war, pandemic, terrorism, etc. you always have to find a balance.
With the climate change debate, this balance is completely ignored and people are seriously suggesting making fundamental changes to society without having any ability to know what the consequences of those will be.
Climate catastrophism is itself a potential danger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"A lot" maybe, but I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem. Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
I don't know. I've seen so much fear-mongering in my life. We're all going to die from zika, n1h1, ebola, killer bees, aids, mrsa, terrorists, and so on. In each case, there's something to be afraid of, and you might actually know someone who died in one those ways, but the media and the lay people blow it way out of proportion. The people I've know who died have been from drugs, suicide, heart failure, stroke, and car accidents.
> The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind.
I can't accept that as sensible. It's easy to contrive unacceptable courses of action by applying that rule: "The police don't know who the murderers are, so they lock up everyone to avoid the worst outcome." "The doctor isn't sure how bad the infection is, so we amputate all the limbs just in case."