6 ms·

I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global

by amalag 11y ago

I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
If only it were that easy. With energy use expected to rise and the Jevon's Paradox sure to annihilate any environmental benefits from increased efficiency, we will have to make some unfortunate choices about energy sources. Coal is very very dirty, beyond CO2, we're talking sulfur and mercury poisoning. Fracking is actually quite safe but notoriously under regulated. Nuclear is clean and safe but a generation raised on Homer Simpson and Chernobyl footage means they'll never accept it. Even green tech is dirty. Refining rare earths is environmentally disasterous (gotta rip those high valence electrons somehow) and battery recycling in Nigeria has created a huge spike in lead poisoning cases and deaths. Fighting climate change is the biggest conflict in the history in humanity. Our species is our enemy and our ally, and we are tasked between holding onto the plummeting biodiversity we have on this day, December 7, 2015, or complete and utter extinction. It won't be easy, and we will all have to make choices we don't like.
Daishiman 11y ago
"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts have.
- smalldataguy 11y ago
  To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to ensure it's from renewable sources, using more expensive but more recyclable packing, and similar.
    - smalldataguy 11y ago
      According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pdf http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...
      - mikeash 11y ago
        How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?
        smalldataguy 11y ago
        We may have to disagree at this point, but there are 100 billion worth of dollars, which is going to create some pretty strong economic interests. Are you using "entrenched" in a historical sense? I suppose I'm using it more as a substitute for "heavyweight". Anyhow, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that there are strong economic powerhouses controlling billions of dollars trying to promote the green movement. I'm not totally sure if the other side of the coin is particularly relevant, unless it's the case that politicians are all already bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests, and thus not available to be bought by newer "green" economic interests. Regardless, what were we discussing?
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I doubt that's true - most people simply aren't equipped to understand it. I know I am not, but I have an old friend who is, and he ran me through the high points. I wish he'd write down what he'd told me - it helped. I still assign a nonzero probability to finding out we're wrong. Because, y'know, science. We should pay applied math PhDs to just answer questions as a general service :)
gnaritas 11y ago
If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.
- vlehto 11y ago
  It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - acqq 11y ago
    In this case that you seem to support the skepticism is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argume... "If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true." For example, it's not that Einstein in 1905 made Newton's formulas from around 1700 unusable, quite the opposite, for a lot of purposes they are still used: it's just that for the very high speeds they need adjustment factors and more complicated math to express what's going on. The expected improvement in the science certainly won't make "everything we know wrong." Such formulations are just spammy titles. There will be only refinements. For the current state, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784
    - vlehto 11y ago
      I didn't say anything about climate change on the above comment. I only said the argument was not solid. I'm not "climate skeptic", I'm true believer. I just try to combat these authority heretics.

by amalag 11y ago

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

If only it were that easy. With energy use expected to rise and the Jevon's Paradox sure to annihilate any environmental benefits from increased efficiency, we will have to make some unfortunate choices about energy sources. Coal is very very dirty, beyond CO2, we're talking sulfur and mercury poisoning. Fracking is actually quite safe but notoriously under regulated. Nuclear is clean and safe but a generation raised on Homer Simpson and Chernobyl footage means they'll never accept it. Even green tech is dirty. Refining rare earths is environmentally disasterous (gotta rip those high valence electrons somehow) and battery recycling in Nigeria has created a huge spike in lead poisoning cases and deaths. Fighting climate change is the biggest conflict in the history in humanity. Our species is our enemy and our ally, and we are tasked between holding onto the plummeting biodiversity we have on this day, December 7, 2015, or complete and utter extinction. It won't be easy, and we will all have to make choices we don't like.

Daishiman 11y ago

"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts have.

smalldataguy 11y ago
To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to ensure it's from renewable sources, using more expensive but more recyclable packing, and similar.
  - smalldataguy 11y ago
    According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pdf http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?
      - smalldataguy 11y ago
        We may have to disagree at this point, but there are 100 billion worth of dollars, which is going to create some pretty strong economic interests. Are you using "entrenched" in a historical sense? I suppose I'm using it more as a substitute for "heavyweight". Anyhow, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that there are strong economic powerhouses controlling billions of dollars trying to promote the green movement. I'm not totally sure if the other side of the coin is particularly relevant, unless it's the case that politicians are all already bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests, and thus not available to be bought by newer "green" economic interests. Regardless, what were we discussing?
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I doubt that's true - most people simply aren't equipped to understand it. I know I am not, but I have an old friend who is, and he ran me through the high points. I wish he'd write down what he'd told me - it helped. I still assign a nonzero probability to finding out we're wrong. Because, y'know, science. We should pay applied math PhDs to just answer questions as a general service :)

gnaritas 11y ago

If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.

vlehto 11y ago
It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- acqq 11y ago
  In this case that you seem to support the skepticism is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argume... "If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true." For example, it's not that Einstein in 1905 made Newton's formulas from around 1700 unusable, quite the opposite, for a lot of purposes they are still used: it's just that for the very high speeds they need adjustment factors and more complicated math to express what's going on. The expected improvement in the science certainly won't make "everything we know wrong." Such formulations are just spammy titles. There will be only refinements. For the current state, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784
  - vlehto 11y ago
    I didn't say anything about climate change on the above comment. I only said the argument was not solid. I'm not "climate skeptic", I'm true believer. I just try to combat these authority heretics.