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

The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#51

Post by Tichy »

Rod wrote: post #32
Tichy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts can go wrong, too - and who defines who is an expert and who isn't? Some amateurs might have read more about the issue than the self-proclaimed experts. And if non-experts are not qualified to speak, how do you justify letting them vote? Not saying democracy is perfect, but apparently there was a thought that even if people are not experts, they might be able to inform themselves sufficiently to be able to de…

Science is not programming. You can't learn Climate Modeling in your spare time, without checking experimental data and interacting with other people. Scientists should investigate and report their findings. Politicians should decide what to do. People elect politicians, not scientists. That's the way it should work. Democracy is not in danger. However, we now see politicians doing (pseudo-)science (Al Gore is a prim…

Not every climate expert has run a climate model in his head. Presumably sometimes they also just read papers about other people's results, and assign the a likelihood based on their own experiences. Maybe they are better at estimating likelihoods, but other than that, not so different from the common person in the street.

Even without knowledge in climate modeling, some things can be easily seen. For example it seems obvious that there is a debate on man made warming - some experts seem to consider it likely, others not. Credentials of experts can be checked to some degree without expertise in climate modeling, too. And so on - at every level of knowledge, it is possible to make an estimate of the probabilities, I should think.

Also, I think it is often politicians who decide which scientists get funding for their research, so in a way people do elect scientists (not sure how the system works in the US).

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Rod wrote: post #32
Tichy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts can go wrong, too - and who defines who is an expert and who isn't? Some amateurs might have read more about the issue than the self-proclaimed experts. And if non-experts are not qualified to speak, how do you justify letting them vote? Not saying democracy is perfect, but apparently there was a thought that even if people are not experts, they might be able to inform themselves sufficiently to be able to de…

Science is not programming. You can't learn Climate Modeling in your spare time, without checking experimental data and interacting with other people. Scientists should investigate and report their findings. Politicians should decide what to do. People elect politicians, not scientists. That's the way it should work. Democracy is not in danger. However, we now see politicians doing (pseudo-)science (Al Gore is a prim…

[deleted]

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#53

Post by cgranade »

anamax wrote: post #44
cgranade wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how much we spend on entertainment and other luxuries, is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species "literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths?" Hell, given what we spend on killing each other over oil and religion, how is it that spending money on understanding and dealing with climate change is stealing? In the United States alone,…

> even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and inaction on climate change. Really? If we spent $20B on global warming you'd go away happy? > is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species Interestingly enough, if you read the cost estimates from the advocates, it's reasonably cheap to deal with the problem after it occurs, at le…

Of course it'd take more than $20 billion over the span of our lifetimes. I meant that within the context of the Iraq War spending, diverting even a few of those 600 billions of dollars could have made a very positive impact and would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue. I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change. Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#54

Post by robotrout »

cgranade wrote: post #42
robotrout wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side of caution" Let me try to help you see then. Even though it's extremely important that you prevent tooth decay, and even if you have a huge chunk of "Jolly Rancher" stuck between your teeth, it would be a non-optimal use of resources to use your last match as you were shivering on the side of a mountain with a broken leg, to dislodge the offending piece of cand…

Given how much we spend on entertainment and other luxuries, is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species "literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths?" Hell, given what we spend on killing each other over oil and religion, how is it that spending money on understanding and dealing with climate change is stealing? In the United States alone,…

You're unhappy with the amount we spend on entertainment and the Iraq war, and would like us to divert all the money towards global warming mitigation. Perhaps we could cork some volcanoes or do some cloud seeding to induce some rainstorms to get rid of water vapor. Let's take your $600 billion that you say would make a huge difference.

As we're writing the check to the cloud-seeding company, or the volcano corking company, it occurs to you, that there's a lot of things you could do with this money. You could use it to try to stop Iraq from developing biological weapons to kill hundred of thousands with, for instance. Or, if you knew more than the French, the Israelis, and the U.S. did, or just didn't think that was a problem you cared about (let him do it, it's no skin off your nose), you still might think "Wow, I could buy DDT for every man, woman, and child in Africa with this, and save millions of lives." Or, if you didn't want to do that, since DDT is evil and might kill birds, you might think "I could build desalination plants to get the water to feed hungry people in arid climates. and give them relief now, not in 100 years."

When you have the checkbook in your hand, and you are considering choosing to spend the money on volcano corking, or, god forbid, something actually foolish, you may, instead, say "Hey, maybe we should be sure before we blow this money." I think if I gave you the checkbook, you'd think a lot differently than when somebody else has the checkbook.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#55

Post by jacoblyles »

The use of the word "heretic" is telling. This issue has long since taken on the overtone of a religious debate rather than a scientific one. I don't think someone should be considered a "heretic" when he has on his side an MIT climate physicist, a former director of climate science at NASA, a Nobel physicist, IPCC participants, and hundreds of other relevant intellectuals.

Whoever said "the debate on Global Warming is over" ought to be forever considered a disingenuous political hack.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#56

Post by samas »

Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as the loss of coastal land as sea level rises. Natural systems are fragile, and we continue to poke and push them, with damages (for example, loss of biodiversity) that are not clearly obvious and that are in many cases simply irreparable. I won't belabor this point, although obviously much more could be said.

Burning carbon based materials to generate energy is, in the long term, unsustainable--there is a finite supply, and getting at the remaining sources will continue to become more expensive and more environmentally invasive (see: mountaintop removal). But enough about the environment, there are more important considerations (After all, we will eventually leave this planet, right?).

Our eventual shift to renewable sources of energy is inevitable. Worries about the consequences of climate change are finally gaining momentum in the public conscious. That means that now is the time to go full speed on development and roll-out of renewable energy. Mr. Dyson mentions that "By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor."

Interesting comment from the man described as looking "like a person taking the longer view," because (given time) cheap abundant energy would do an incredible amount for the poor and starving. Deserts could be irrigated and farmed with desalinized water, pumps could preserve our coastal cities, really, the applications of cheap and abundant renewable energy are limited by our imaginations. Why leave that for our childrens' or grandchildrens' generation? What are we waiting for?

There is always a place for some healthy skepticism, but I fear that with respect to this particular issue skepticism has given the world plenty of motivation to procrastinate.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#57

Post by LargeWu »

cgranade wrote: post #43
LargeWu wrote: post #41

I think Dyson's biggest hangup seems to be that much of the doomsaying surrounding global warming is based on computerized models, which is not, strictly speaking, science. You probably can't empirically test most of the climate models being produced.

Not science? Better tell the computer scientists and the computational physicists... Science is, at its most basic, our attempt to understand the world. As such, science employs many different tools and approaches, including numerical modeling. In particular. numerical analysis is a very well understood field of mathematics that allows us to rigorously analyze complicated problems by using one of the most innovative…

I'm not saying models aren't tools of science. They are very important. However, the most important part of science is the part about independently recreating and verifying results. You simply cannot do that with long range climate models without waiting for that time to elapse and seeing if the model predicted what it was supposed to predict.

I'm not saying the models are wrong, or that climate change doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that calling the predictions of these models "science" is a bit misleading. The underlying factors maybe be based on scientific knowledge, but the models themselves are based on statistics, not science, because they can't be empirically verified.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#58

Post by bokonist »

Rod wrote: post #15
logjam wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh. People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh? Certainly your own biases, politics, and ideology aren't apparent from your prose, right? Plenty of good scientists besides Freeman Dyson (one of my own personal heroes) have looked at the good science on the issue, and have concluded man's activities are causing harm.

"People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh?" No. You didn't get the point. Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation,…

Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic.

The trouble is the money comes out of the pocket books of non-scientists. And they must be able to make the judgment, of whether or not climate modeling is the equivalent of chemistry or of alchemy. The alchemist is not just going to come out and tell you that his whole field is full of mistakes, and that you should cut off funding. Thus when the money of the laity is at stake, there is no avoiding having the laity make opinions about the details of climate science.

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#59

Post by hhm »

shrughes wrote: post #27
hhm wrote: post #6

"A group of scientists will be sitting around the cafeteria, and one will idly wonder if there is an integer where, if you take its last digit and move it to the front, turning, say, 112 to 211, it’s possible to exactly double the value. Dyson will immediately say, “Oh, that’s not difficult,” allow two short beats to pass and then add, “but of course the smallest such number is 18 digits long.”" So how did he know th…

Because the decimal expansion of 19 repeats after 18 digits. That means all the fractions 1/19 .. 18/19 are just rotations of each other. And 20/19 = 1 + 1/19, which means that 2/19 is a single rotation away. If you've ever noticed that 142857 * [1..6] produces different rotations of the same number and wondered why, you might have thought about this. Dyson had probably already done all the hard work on the problem a…

Wow thanks!

Re: The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson

#60

Post by ironsam »

cgranade wrote: post #43
LargeWu wrote: post #41

I think Dyson's biggest hangup seems to be that much of the doomsaying surrounding global warming is based on computerized models, which is not, strictly speaking, science. You probably can't empirically test most of the climate models being produced.

Not science? Better tell the computer scientists and the computational physicists... Science is, at its most basic, our attempt to understand the world. As such, science employs many different tools and approaches, including numerical modeling. In particular. numerical analysis is a very well understood field of mathematics that allows us to rigorously analyze complicated problems by using one of the most innovative…

One of the most ubiquitous and profitable types of models would be short-term weather forecasting. These are regularly wrong by several degrees, misjudging precipitation, etc, when trying to predict just 12 hours in advance. There's absolutely no point in looking at forecasts greater than three days, they're barely a guess, throw all the "accurate" equations and you want at it. [Disclaimer: I'm from the midwest - capricious weather.]
Post reply on HN