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

The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#81

Post by sgift »

thrwoeriu23423 wrote: post #79
ChuckMcM wrote: post #19

This is a good read, although somewhat depressing. When you have a topic that has been weaponized politically, as climate change has, people who use that weapon actively work against information they perceive would make the weapon less effective. The author sums it up as follows: ---- from the article: According to Rayner, in such a context we should expect to see reactions to uncomfortable knowledge that include: de…

> Not enough people understand that science is expected to be wrong. The propaganda for making Science the new-religion is far too advanced sadly - even the classic development of heliocentric model is so riddled with misinformation that it's hard to have much hope for much else. The effect of all this is that it brings to the fore all the forgotten protestant templates in the form of the vitriolic "anti-science" and…

> One fringe punishes any criticism of the establishment view viciously (the epidemiologists & medical experts who weren't for lockdowns comes to mind),

This is rewriting history. At the start of the pandemic the position of "lockdown is a bad idea" was taken very seriously. Only when it failed to provide results and some people still clung to it they got called out. That's literally the opposite of what the article describes (holding on to outdated science, because of "momentum").

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#82

Post by skybrian »

stijlist wrote: post #58

The text says one thing, but the graph they display to support their argument does not say what I thought it said. The purple line is supposed to be our "real" emissions, and the impression you get from the image and text is that our real emissions are much lower than the projected emissions. But if you actually look at the values of the purple line vs the other lines now , in 2020/2021, the values are almost exactly…

I don’t understand the graph at all. Which line is the purple line? Is it labeled?

It seems like real emissions should end at or before 2020 and none of them do that. They all seem to be projections of some sort?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#83

Post by pdm55 »

I'm not sure where this line of thought is headed. I once had to work with the Hela cell line, coating it in alginate polysaccharide. I thought to myself,"How can I test if the functioning of the cells have been altered by the coating?" A little book research convinced me that any tests would be useless, as a cancer cell has basically shut down all functions except those required for growth. So I just worked on trying to improve the coating, and continued staring through the micrscope at the somewhat terrifying malignant growth.

As regards, climate studies. Where have we heard the term "peak" something-or-other before. Ah yes, "peak oil". Well that didn't happen: we found more oil, we substituted gas, ... "Peak CO2": I nearly choked on my morning biscuit. Please tell China and India and Africa to stop developing and remain underdeveloped. Come on man, are you on drugs? Maybe, when a few billion have been displaced from their homes and invaded our comfortable lifestyles, we all might decide to stop driving and generating power with coal, oil and gas.

I remember the time at uni 20 years when the power failed. The cafeteria went dark, the fridges didn't work, the heated food display cabinets didn't function, the cash registers were useless and the cashiers had to write down amounts with pen and paper. When our grandchildren have to make the hard decision to drastically reduce power consumption in a last ditch effort to reduce CO2, they will be turning off the switches in fully-automated societies. Will societies cope with that scenario?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#84

Post by Clewza313 »

pdm55 wrote: post #83

I'm not sure where this line of thought is headed. I once had to work with the Hela cell line, coating it in alginate polysaccharide. I thought to myself,"How can I test if the functioning of the cells have been altered by the coating?" A little book research convinced me that any tests would be useless, as a cancer cell has basically shut down all functions except those required for growth. So I just worked on tryin…

"Peak oil" simply means the year when the maximum amount of oil is extracted; the implication is (was) that if demand > supply when this happened, this would cause a spike in prices. As it happens, it's pretty likely we did hit peak oil in 2019, before COVID reshuffled everything and oil prices hit historic lows in 2020.

Same for "peak CO2": energy consumption is growing and will continue to do so, but if we're swapping out coal and gas for solar and wind, the amount of CO2 generated can still decline overall.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#85

Post by psychiatrist24 »

perrygeo wrote: post #75

The emission scenarios were developed decades ago and are proving to be over-estimates. The author interprets that as outdated science which is a rather pessimistic view. I interpret it differently: Scientists make a spread of climate predictions and their potential consequences. Those listening mustered significant market/public/government pressure and ... it worked. We pushed the outcome towards the low end of the…

What exactly was done because of pressure? More solar cells and wind mills? Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? In my country, they are shutting down nuclear power plants, relying on coal instead. Electric cars are still a rarity, and global car use seems to be rising still.

I find your line of reasoning maddening. While it is possible that pressure had an effect, it can be used to prove almost everything. It rained after rain dances, so rain dances work!

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#86

Post by adrianN »

pdm55 wrote: post #83

I'm not sure where this line of thought is headed. I once had to work with the Hela cell line, coating it in alginate polysaccharide. I thought to myself,"How can I test if the functioning of the cells have been altered by the coating?" A little book research convinced me that any tests would be useless, as a cancer cell has basically shut down all functions except those required for growth. So I just worked on tryin…

We know how to generate essentially limitless amounts of energy without producing CO2. There is no need to turn off switches, we just need to build enough solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, power-to-gas reactors, and, if we like, nuclear power plants.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#87

Post by rini17 »

adrianN wrote: post #86
pdm55 wrote: post #83

I'm not sure where this line of thought is headed. I once had to work with the Hela cell line, coating it in alginate polysaccharide. I thought to myself,"How can I test if the functioning of the cells have been altered by the coating?" A little book research convinced me that any tests would be useless, as a cancer cell has basically shut down all functions except those required for growth. So I just worked on tryin…

We know how to generate essentially limitless amounts of energy without producing CO2. There is no need to turn off switches, we just need to build enough solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, power-to-gas reactors, and, if we like, nuclear power plants.

(*) CO2 caused by manufacturing and maintenance not included

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#88

Post by lolc »

Of course we'd like researchers to always start from the best premises. But the process is such that if you want to update your premises, you have twenty competing theories to choose from, all in the process of getting validated. Do you move and where do you move?

When I read this article I immediately felt with the author how these people should update their models. How long can it take? But then again, how do I know the author's choice studies are the good ones? If I were to talks to somebody in the field, they'd note that those studies are "promising" or "concerning". But maybe they won't change what they're doing just yet. Inertia? Yes. Bad? Oh, where's hindsight when you need it the most!

The book The Golem by Collins and Pinch discusses historical examples of the scientific process for things we take for granted today. They show how shaky the confirming experiments were. How they could've easily gone the other way, and how some positive early results were based on selecting favourable data.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#89

Post by adrianN »

psychiatrist24 wrote: post #85
perrygeo wrote: post #75

The emission scenarios were developed decades ago and are proving to be over-estimates. The author interprets that as outdated science which is a rather pessimistic view. I interpret it differently: Scientists make a spread of climate predictions and their potential consequences. Those listening mustered significant market/public/government pressure and ... it worked. We pushed the outcome towards the low end of the…

What exactly was done because of pressure? More solar cells and wind mills? Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? In my country, they are shutting down nuclear power plants, relying on coal instead. Electric cars are still a rarity, and global car use seems to be rising still. I find your line of reasoning maddening. While it is possible that pre…

> Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet

Yes, payback time is quite short.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#90

Post by adrianN »

rini17 wrote: post #87
adrianN wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know how to generate essentially limitless amounts of energy without producing CO2. There is no need to turn off switches, we just need to build enough solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, power-to-gas reactors, and, if we like, nuclear power plants.

(*) CO2 caused by manufacturing and maintenance not included

You get enough energy out to sequester that CO2 back.
Post reply on HN