Time to ditch the climate consensus • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#21

Post by ivankirigin » Thu, May 07, 2009, 4:52 PM UTC

WilliamLP wrote: post #18

ivankirigin wrote: post #7

It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action. This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science. In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusin…

> In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Uh, have you ever read Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Leonard Susskind, and Lubos Motl?

The complete statement should have read "impassioned pleas for one side ... for government action"

Strong opinions are healthy. Strong opinions mandating an end to discussion in order to take collectivist action are not.

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#22

Post by jshen » Thu, May 07, 2009, 4:54 PM UTC

ivankirigin wrote: post #16

gustavo_duarte wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for private action, but you cannot take the government out of this issue. After all, whether to build the third runway in Heathrow is not a private decision. Likewise, it's hard for private parties to deal with externalities.

Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action. With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated. Cap and Trade solutions for climate change are, say, 5 orders of magnitude more costly. With that comes added demand for certainty. The more rigorous the demands for certainty, the greater the indication that…

"Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action.

With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated."

This seems to be a contradiction.

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#23

Post by WilliamLP » Thu, May 07, 2009, 4:54 PM UTC

ivankirigin wrote: post #21

WilliamLP wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Uh, have you ever read Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Leonard Susskind, and Lubos Motl?

The complete statement should have read "impassioned pleas for one side ... for government action" Strong opinions are healthy. Strong opinions mandating an end to discussion in order to take collectivist action are not.

Again, have you read anything by Lee Smolin or Peter Woit?:)

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#24

Post by ilitirit » Thu, May 07, 2009, 5:19 PM UTC

tc7 wrote: post #20

ilitirit wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What?! He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context. Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy: Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years. Should we roun…

That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change issue. :) I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.

It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these.

My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make in cases like these.

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#25

Post by msie » Thu, May 07, 2009, 9:06 PM UTC

Please note who wrote the article:

Stuart Blackman is a science writer and co-editor of the Climate Resistance blog.

My impression of the blog is they want to continue the debate on climate-change and delay whatever action should be taken because they believe the environmental movement is a crazy cult. This interview serves their purpose.

They also believe that: 4. The scientific consensus on climate change as widely reported inaccurately reflects the true state of scientific knowledge. This is a familiar charge from people who deny human-caused climate change.

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#26

Post by hvs » Thu, May 07, 2009, 9:34 PM UTC

sethg wrote: post #14

hvs wrote: post #4

Any time that you hear someone say, "we need to get beyond debate and act," it usually means they are no longer willing to listen to others and they just want to implement their solution.

But this is one of the necessary differences between science and politics. Politics requires making decisions, and acting on them, based on imperfect information. There's nothing wrong with saying "I know we don't have 100% certainty on this issue, but even at a level of only 80% certainty, the expected cost of doing nothing is so great, compared to the cost of taking action, that we're better off taking action."

The cost of acting in the way that some people want could do extensive damage to our economy and could have very little effect on the problem that they are attempting to solve. If individuals feel that there are things that should be done, they are free to start implementing themselves and working with business to make the case. It is only when people assume that the government has to force everyone to do what they want is it a question of what everyone agrees on. You don't need complete consensus if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Re: Time to ditch the climate consensus

#27

Post by easp » Tue, May 12, 2009, 1:31 AM UTC

msie wrote: post #25

Please note who wrote the article: Stuart Blackman is a science writer and co-editor of the Climate Resistance blog. My impression of the blog is they want to continue the debate on climate-change and delay whatever action should be taken because they believe the environmental movement is a crazy cult. This interview serves their purpose. They also believe that: 4. The scientific consensus on climate change as widely…

Its like the f'ing tobacco industry did for four or five decades. Once they realized the science is against them, they start spraying FUD out every orifice, delaying action for as long as possible.