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

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#21

Post by dejb »

jrmurad wrote: post #15
dejb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of g…

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming The incentive seems obvious to me but correct me if I'm wrong: increased taxes and regulation resulting in more power for politicians.

It seems your conception of the conspiracy runs deaper than I could have imagined. You are only one step from arguing that global warming as the basis for a plot to enslave the people of the world.

In the end governments have people's expectations of improved living standards to deal with. If the people don't approve of the way things are going they are voted out of office (or removed some other way in non-democracies). Unless you actually believe some kind of 'enslaved world' theory you'd find that the additional costs associated with the carbon reduction are somthing most goverments are keen to avoid for as long as possible.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#22

Post by dejb »

anamax wrote: post #13
mkn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the despicable grant-money trope rears its ugly head again. Fine and fair enough, we all agree that research takes money. But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or 2) A significant number o…

> But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or The "AGW support gets funding" argument doesn't require that anyone lie. It merely requires that AGW support be used as a criteria for determining fu…

> AI before the winter qualifies.

No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development.

> So does room-temperature fusion.

You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.

>> This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day.

You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#23

Post by Tichy »

patio11 wrote: post #16
Tichy wrote: post #9

I suspect they came to that conclusion by studying the guts of whales.

This is about as knee-slappingly insightful as a Japanese person saying "Trust Paul Graham on startups? Pfft. What would Americans ever accomplish with a startup, invading somebody?"

They are from maritime research, and they compared computer modeling of climate changes to astrology, so the step to reading guts of whales doesn't seem so far fetched to me. Japan is famous for needing whales for scientific research, so I just put 2+2 together.

I must admit I missed all pages of the article after the first, though (bloody pagination). Now reading, I can at least sympathize with the notion that man made global warming is only a hypothesis. However, that holds for anything science says, doesn't it? There are still varying degrees of belief based on the known evidence.

Overall the whole article did not have much content, or did it? The only content is basically that there are 3 japanese scientists who don't believe in global warming and 2 who do (or something like that - in any case the real information content is close to zero).

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#24

Post by Tichy »

jrmurad wrote: post #15
dejb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of g…

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming The incentive seems obvious to me but correct me if I'm wrong: increased taxes and regulation resulting in more power for politicians.

Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too? And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#25

Post by Allocator2008 »

Allocator2008 wrote: post #2

What about Man-Bear-Pig? Man-Bear-Pig poses a huge threat to this planet. I'm serial, people. I'm totally serial!

Listen people, I'm serial. Man-Bear-Pig is a huge threat, and if you can't see that, and you continue to down vote this thread, I will demand a recount of your down votes. If I don't like that recount, I will appeal to the Imperial Senate and keep appealing until Palpatine gives me a count I like. I'm serial. I did not invent the internet for you just so you could ignore Man-Bear-Pig. You people are about to experience an inconvenient recount. This is serial people.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#26

Post by dejb »

dejb wrote: post #22
anamax wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or The "AGW support gets funding" argument doesn't require that anyone lie. It merely requires that AGW support be used as a criteria for determining fu…

> AI before the winter qualifies. No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development. > So does room-temperature fusion. You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I…

Should have proof read this.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#27

Post by anamax »

dejb wrote: post #22
anamax wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or The "AGW support gets funding" argument doesn't require that anyone lie. It merely requires that AGW support be used as a criteria for determining fu…

> AI before the winter qualifies. No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development. > So does room-temperature fusion. You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I…

> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.

Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact.

Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones.

If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?)

> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.

Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists.

When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them ....

When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"....

I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides.

However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior.

It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data.

I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but ....

> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming.

Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise?

Or, are you going, as I am, by "monkey sign"?

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#28

Post by anamax »

Tichy wrote: post #24
jrmurad wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming The incentive seems obvious to me but correct me if I'm wrong: increased taxes and regulation resulting in more power for politicians.

Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too? And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.

> Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too?

No. Regulation is an opportunity to pass out favors.

> And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.

No, spending doesn't have to be for specific things. (What fraction of alcohol taxes goes to alcohol treatment?)

Moreover, controlling more spending is typically more interesting than controlling specific spending.

To put it another way, dollars are fungible wrt political power.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#29

Post by anamax »

dejb wrote: post #8
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always relevant to consider the source. I like to keep in mind that the material arguing problematic anthropogenic warming all comes from public grant funded researchers, who would like to keep getting grants. "Impending Catastrophe" scares up money, I would think.

I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of g…

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming.

Then you don't understand monkeys. (Govts are groups of monkeys.)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...

> In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.

And, you don't understand large organizations. (The president and/or congress doesn't actually have strong control over the bureaucracies.)

Even Louis XIV was probably wrong when he said that he was the state.

Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

#30

Post by dejb »

anamax wrote: post #27
dejb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI before the winter qualifies. No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development. > So does room-temperature fusion. You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I…

> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts. Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact. Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones. If you want to ar…

Cold fusion shows that the scientific process can quickly correct for errors before they become widely accepted. Even if those theories are ones that would lead to major increases in scientific funding. Maybe in your conspiracy-theory, wacky-science world 'room temperature fusion' was actually a widely accepted theory but in the actual scientific world it was nothing more than a theory proposed by a few people that was rapidly disproven. If that is the best comparable case you can find then you might as well give up.

The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion

> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them

What? Where?

> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"

Um what?

> When I hear satan telling me to...

OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.

Post reply on HN