Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#31

Post by bokonist » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 6:56 PM UTC

TriinT wrote: post #23

mlinsey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are your attacks on Krugman more constructive than the GP's attacks on you? Because Krugman isn't posting here?

Because Krugman is intellectually dishonest and because he's a public figure. His opinions shape the thoughts of the population. Nobody reads my opinions. Thank goodness I am no public figure. If you're going to address the public, you should be honest. Krugman is an economist. He constantly sells half-baked, hand-waving arguments as absolute truths. And this is not because he's a "liberal". The same happens with all…

Public figures are almost never intellectually honest, because in order to get to their position they usually have to align politically with either the Left or the Right. Facts and arguments are not methods for discovering truth but weapons for assaulting the other team.

At Hacker News we hold everyone to a higher standard. We are not trying to influence policy but to seek truth. We do not want the site to degenerate into the NYTimes or Wall St. journal editorial page.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#32

Post by DanielBMarkham » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:06 PM UTC

TriinT wrote: post #23

mlinsey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are your attacks on Krugman more constructive than the GP's attacks on you? Because Krugman isn't posting here?

Because Krugman is intellectually dishonest and because he's a public figure. His opinions shape the thoughts of the population. Nobody reads my opinions. Thank goodness I am no public figure. If you're going to address the public, you should be honest. Krugman is an economist. He constantly sells half-baked, hand-waving arguments as absolute truths. And this is not because he's a "liberal". The same happens with all…

An "expert" who tells the public he does not know will be frowned upon. But that's the point: experts don't know everything, and should not claim to know more than they do.

This is the tension in science. You take all of that schooling, and for what? To admit you're as stumped as everybody else?

I mean seriously, when is the last time you saw a science show where they basically said "Beats me"? Instead it's all upbeat and glossed over.

The way we sell science and actual state of science are two completely different things.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#33

Post by lanaer » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:08 PM UTC

TriinT wrote: post #28

mighty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.

English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?

If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary!

“Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all.

“climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period”

In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period.

“Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both).

Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#34

Post by quoderat » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:14 PM UTC

bokonist wrote: post #29

quoderat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70…

Total sea ice is as high as ever: 'On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were "unprecedented" for the month of April in over 25 years.' source: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066 Could warming have caused ice to melt in the northern hemisphere and grow in the Antartic? It's possible, but the explanation starts smelling like a "just so story". The explanation by NASA that the loss of Arti…

The problem is, increasing Antarctic ice is expected, given the warming actually occurring:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/whats-really-up...

"But scientists studying trends at both poles say there is nothing inconsistent with the intensifying greenhouse effect. William Chapman, who maintains the helpful Cryosphere Today Web site at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, sent me an email this morning reminding me of a 2005 study that projects more Antarctic sea ice (by volume) in a warming world."

And that's without even getting into the question of is the climate change anthropogenic or not. Given what we know about CO2, hard to see how it could be otherwise, but not worth arguing over. What will happen, will happen.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#35

Post by TriinT » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:21 PM UTC

lanaer wrote: post #33

TriinT wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?

If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary! “Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all. “climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long…

Please note that you defined "climate" in terms of "weather", and "weather" in terms of "climate".

"in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms"

Temperature and precipitation can be measured. Windspeed can also be measured. One can't really measure a storm, but one can measure how violent the storm is, roughly speaking. If you discretize physical space and assign values of temperature, pressume, etc to each cell in the grid, and you log them over a certain period of time, then you obtain a microscopic description of the "weather".

The laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer define the dynamics of the system. Knowing the inputs, we obtain a trajectory in a very high-dimensional state-space. This is too much information for humans to digest. Hence, the order of the model is greatly reduced, and instead of microscopic description, we have a macroscopic description which we call the "weather". After all, we need to know if it's gonna rain or how cold it will be, we don't need to know the temperature and pressure at every single point in space, nor do we need to know how fast each droptlet of rain is falling.

I agree with you. In my view, the dynamics are the same, and the "climate change" people talk means that the trajectories in state-space are approaching regions they usually don't go to. But since trajectories are inherently dynamic, I think the word "change" is weak. That is why I proposed the word "crisis".

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#36

Post by TriinT » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:28 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #32

TriinT wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Krugman is intellectually dishonest and because he's a public figure. His opinions shape the thoughts of the population. Nobody reads my opinions. Thank goodness I am no public figure. If you're going to address the public, you should be honest. Krugman is an economist. He constantly sells half-baked, hand-waving arguments as absolute truths. And this is not because he's a "liberal". The same happens with all…

An "expert" who tells the public he does not know will be frowned upon. But that's the point: experts don't know everything, and should not claim to know more than they do. This is the tension in science. You take all of that schooling, and for what? To admit you're as stumped as everybody else? I mean seriously, when is the last time you saw a science show where they basically said "Beats me"? Instead it's all upbea…

Science shows are entertainment, mostly. Their goal is to promote Science, and I think they do their job well.

I have had the priviledge of working with some truly top-notch scientists. A common trait among them is how honest they were on the limitations of their knowledge. They were not afraid to say they were wrong, or that they didn't know.

This was in their academic environment. I don't know if they would be that honest when addressing the public. The average person would probably not be able to understand how's it possible that an illustrious professor has spent his entire career studying elementary particles and is still baffled by them. That is due to the fact that the average person does not know what deep knowledge is, and does not need to know.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#37

Post by Tichy » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:33 PM UTC

jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

Maybe because you grow tired of silly arguments being repeated over and over again. I don't know much about climate science, but for example I think I know enough about evolution theory to be able to debunk the arguments of the creationists. Yet creationists won't give in - clearly reasoning is useless with them after a point. After a while I even suspect that the "opposing side" might have hired some people just to be obnoxious and bind the resources of "my side".

For example I felt it was sad when all new books by evolution researchers stared to be 50% arguing against the same old tired creationist arguments. I felt the energy would have been better spent advancing the science.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#38

Post by Tichy » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:36 PM UTC

TriinT wrote: post #8

jswinghammer wrote: post #3

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Underst…

"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit."

Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information.

The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#39

Post by TriinT » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:47 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #38

TriinT wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Underst…

"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit." Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information. The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.

"Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information."

Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1.

No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature.

Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.

Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

#40

Post by davetufts » Mon, Jun 29, 2009, 7:56 PM UTC

hvs wrote: post #6

Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and…

Where's the free-market?

Has the free-market taken us to multiple wars over the past 20-years with countries that have large oil reserves so oil can keep flowing in our direction? Has the free-market kept interest rates far below reality, allowing us to go on a massive consumption binge?

Does the free-market regulate agriculture, discouraging small farms in favor of massive CAFOs? Does the free-market subsidize huge agri-business to produce more corn than we can possibly use?

It's these unchanging economic and foreign policies that encourage waste, consumption, and addiction to fossil fuels, which, in turn, have a negative effect on our planet.