8 ms·
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
- sridca 10y agoAlternative link: http://archive.is/iFMxG http://archive.is/iFMxG
- notadoc 10y agoMy Unhappy Life As A Flat Earther My Unhappy Life As A Gravity Nonbeliever My Unhappy Life As A Lettuce Is Not A Plant Truther
- WillPostForFood 10y agoLet me ask you a favor. Read the article, then come back and let us know if you think your post was fair.
- notadoc 10y agoMy Unhappy Life As A Paywall Heretic :(
- wallace_f 10y agoIn the comments section here, someone kindly posted an alternative link: http://archive.is/iFMxG http://archive.is/iFMxG
- aetherson 10y agoSearch the article on Google and open in an incognito window. The WSJ's paywall usually goes down if you do. Also, maybe don't insult people based on articles you haven't read.
- notadoc 10y agoSome people say you can Google WSJ and open their articles in an incognito window, but there really isn't a consensus about that and the evidence is scant.
- DanBC 10y agoAt the top of the HN page for this submission is a [web] link. Right click it and open it in a new incognito window. Click the first link.
- mikeash 10y agoRead this one and tell me if you think it wasn't: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... I don't know who's right, here, but the guy is hardly an unbiased source. Plenty of climate deniers like to paint themselves as just rationally examining the facts and reaching politically inconvenient conclusions.
- WillPostForFood 10y agoI read your article, and I think comparing him to a gravity unbeliever/flat earther is grossly unfair. I don't know who's right either, but the answer isn't attacking Pielke, or preventing him from speaking, or getting him fired, or starting government investigations. Pielke is surely biased, but so is the author of the Guardian article, and so is Tom Steyer, and so is Paul Krugman.
- triplesec 10y agoTo be fair though, most of those other journalists are biased by most of the scientists and evidence out there. Yes he's not a flat earther, but he is out of his depth in climate science, and his flawed work is used by deniers, as in the comments in the WSJ.
- pidge 10y agoCan you help me understand the graph that article references to claim that more storms are happening?[1] It looks like some classes of disaster have tripled since the '80s, and in general that disasters have basically doubled. Those both seem way beyond what I would imagine being caused by the the global temperature rise of about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the same period. (If temperate increases continue at the same rate, would we see another doubling of all weather-related disasters in ~30 years?). Anyways, that makes me wonder whether the graph captures something like reported disasters or if disaster trends happen on multi-decade scales and that 35-year span is dominated by "short-term" variation. I can't find the original context, but there looks to be an updated version of the graph in this report from the same source [2] and the commentary is "In terms of the number of events, the trend towards greater and more detailed reporting continued, with the total number further increasing to 1,060 events." 1. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/23/1395603535739/MunichReDisasterFrequency450.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1496ff6eb01f5082a97fdc1ca0fa1012 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict... 2. Comment page 54, graph page 56 https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-1170838805/mram/assetpool.munichreamerica.wrap/PDF/03Weather%20Risks/08875_Topics_Geo_2015_en.pdf https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-11...
- dang 10y agoPlease don't do this here. HN comments need to get more substantive as topics get more controversial. That takes discipline, but the alternative is trash, so this is a tragedy of the commons issue.
- triplesec 10y agoThe author's claim is this, and if true there is merit to listening --- Indeed there is rarely merit to not listening. Science is all about observation and probability. EDIT: although clever political framing can skew naive readers away from truths, which is one of the article's meta topics. --- "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career."
- triplesec 10y agoOn the other hand, the claim in the following quotation is logically flawed. 'True' and 'no evidence' are, importantly, not opposites: 'I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures. When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.'
- WillPostForFood 10y agoWhat is the logic flaw? No evidence to support a position is enough to exclude it. Even though you are right, it doesn't mean it is proven false. It does mean no evidence of it being true.
- sgentle 10y agoI think the best thing I've read about truth and politics is "Politics is the Mind-Killer" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/), by Eliezer Yudkowsky back in 2007: > Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. In recent years people seem to be more and more comfortable with this war metaphor, not as a matter for concern and reflection, but as a subject of pride. Well, of course we have to win the battle of ideas; it's a culture war after all! When you think in this way, the goal of argument isn't to find what's true, but to win. And if you have to advance some shaky ideas on your side or ignore some inconvenient facts on theirs, well, it's all in the service of a greater truth anyway, right? But how can you fight a war in the service of truth when truth is its first casualty?
- triplesec 10y agoIndeed, and climate scientists got nowhere for decades being terrible at politics and good at data, which leads us to our current still-probabilistically-hugely-likely (despite this apparent political problem) dire predicament.
- inimino 10y agoThe problem is that it is almost impossible to be good at politics while maintaining the intellectual distance required by science.
- Hondor 10y agoThe sad problem with climate change is that otherwise sensible people are willing to put intellectual honesty aside in the name of "we desperately need to convince everyone that a disaster is coming so they'll be scared into preventing it". Saying something that might calm people down and fear less is heretical, no matter if it's true or not.
- wpietri 10y agoYou ignore here the army of lobbyists who are paid to put intellectual honesty aside in the name of convincing everyone not to worry because that protects hundreds of billions in revenue. it wasn't the people who accept global warming as a reality who started politicizing this. It's unfair to blame them for getting political in response.
- inimino 10y agoIt's unfair to blame only them.
- themgt 10y agoFrom Wikipedia on Piekle [1]: "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive." This sort of do-nothing fatalism is enormously disingenuous and dangerous, and his WSJ op-ed badly understates his criticism as mainly about current weather effects. The fact that Pielke's dad was also a high-profile climate change denier can't help, given the fact these sort of "decades to take effect!" arguments have themselves now been made for decades as part of a typical corporate/politically-motivated FUD campaign. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.
- surfmike 10y agoFrom his op-ed: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax."
- woogiewonka 10y agoBig oil WANTS carbon tax as this would create predictability and stability albeit at a cost. What big oil doesn't want is unpredictable policy - policy that Washington think tanks want to put in place. Right wingers are terrified of progressive policies and this Pielkle fella is not doing the world any favors by advocating for useless policies such as a carbon tax. He may have good intentions and may be factually correct in his observations about lack of clear evidence but this doesn't change the fact that his work is being used to hinder climate progress.
- surfmike 10y agoWhat's wrong with wanting predictability and stability? Right now oil companies have little incentive to invest in alternate energy given the costs, and a carbon tax would change the cost structure for the future and give them a direct financial incentive to transition to non-carbon energy sources. Re: carbon tax being useless, how so? Of course the level of the carbon tax matters too, but it doesn't make sense that directly taxing something wouldn't reduce the amount of it.
- brohoolio 10y ago"Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community" I'm gonna go out here on a limb and say Trump hasn't done a good job so far. He's claimed that vaccines cause autism. Something that's been debunked over and over. Skeptism about vaccines has made things much more difficult for immunocompromised kids. My friend's kid had cancer and the low rates of vaccination in town made things much more dicey for them. The second is Trump has claimed that China is responsible for making up global warming. Right now you've got the house committee on science tweeting out brietbart links. The key will be funding. Will he continue to fund science? Science in many ways is the new manufacturing. Research universities are among the largest employers in the Midwest. It's not all white collar jobs. There are many different types of jobs that work towards creating knowledge.
- vinhboy 10y agoI don't think you are going out on any limb at all. That statement is terrible, because of all the reasons you listed. I think it's pretty dishonest to pretend it's still a "wait and see" kinda thing.
- vinhboy 10y agoLook at the top comments on that article and you can easily see why people want to avoid him. He may believe in climate change, but his work is being used to justify climate change denial. That's like trying to convince people to vaccinate their children, but then giving a bullhorn to a guy standing outside the clinic screaming about possible negative side effects. Obviously I support his right to publish his findings, but he's misconstruing attempts to stop the spread of misinformation (as in his work is being used to justify misinformation) as censorship.
- zuggywugg 10y agoNot only that, he also wants to do nothing about climate change progress other than put in place a small carbon tax to advance technology. This person is not doing any favors to future generations.
- inimino 10y agoThe idea that research should be suppressed because it can be "used to justify denial" (even if it is true) is exactly the problem here.
- vinhboy 10y agoI did not say anything about suppression. Avoidance and dismissal is not suppression. No one is suggesting suppression or censorship. But we should be free to exclude, dismiss, and ignore information we find harmful or irrelevant.
- inimino 10y ago> harmful or irrelevant Or politically inconvenient? If you want to say that the research is no good, that it misrepresents the facts, or that journalists handled the material fairly, that would be material. However, if you say that we should dismiss it because it is being used by people we don't like in ways we don't like, you may as well admit the denialists are right, there is a conspiracy to suppress (oh sorry, just exclude, dismiss, and ignore!) any science that doesn't fit the narrative, and that you don't trust the public to evaluate anything for themselves. This is the attitude and the behavior that makes people distrust climate science. If you put a veneer of falsehood and spin on a mountain of truth, don't be surprised when people assume the falsehood goes all the way through.
- pastProlog 10y agoFortune's Global 500 top 10 is: Walmart $482B in revenue a year State Grid $329B China Natural Petroleum $299B Sinopec $294B Shell $272B ExxonMobil $246B Volkswagen $236B Toyota $236B Apple $233B BP $255B Six oil companies and two car companies. Trillions of dollars in revenue every year, from oil and other fossil fuels. They have massive think tanks, government lobbyists, media and PR reach etc. They're the center of the world economy and world power. Yet this climate denier ("I'm not really a climate denier!") writes for the Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's financial publications are a great place for peer reviewed science - well this guy is a poli-sci major anyhow) about how he is being persecuted by powerful forces. Please. These people are so out of control they're going to burn up the world. I see someone who mentioned the California droughts, Tennessee etc. was downvoted. The inertia of these companies at the center of the world economy is to keep doing what they're doing, which is suicidal. Solar etc. has advanced to where changes can be made which are less drastic than expected, but not with this fellow and his supporters here. As America is going to shit, it's expected that even the silver lining of Silicon Valley's vanguard here are blind to reality and swallow some poli-sci majors climate denial propaganda to Murdoch's paper instead of reading peer-reviewed scientific papers. It goes along with the downward trajectory of the US - the low US growth, crummy unicorns etc. Our incoming pussy-grabbing president used this assessment as his campaign platform, and I agree with him to the limited extent that America is no longer a great country. I have to cast my eyes to the People's Republic of China to see not only robust growth, but the solar, nuclear and other renewable energy sources. Along with their enormous economic growth over the past few decades, it will be the Chinese who will save things for us, while Americans stumble into the muck of Trump, climate denial and what you can see going on here.
- zuggywugg 10y agoPowerful forces such as Tom Steyer - billionaire donor to Center for American Progress and an advocate of clean energy (oh and he helped keep California air clean - what a terrible person!) How dare the White House stand up against billion dollar companies and establish their own think tank!
- dang 10y agoUsing Hacker News primarily for political, ideological, or religious controversy is an abuse of the site. Those things drown out what we want here, which is thoughtful conversation and intellectual curiosity. Since we asked you to stop doing this and you didn't, we've banned your account. We're happy to unban accounts that people give us reason to believe will follow the site rules in the future, so if you'd like to fix this, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. But please don't create new accounts to break the site rules with.
- lisper 10y ago> No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005 That is true, but highly misleading. Yes, Sandy was a Cat 2 when she made landfall in the U.S., but she was a Cat 3 before that, and she was the largest (in terms of area) Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. She was also (and this is the part that really matters) the second costliest hurricane in U.S. history, second only to Katrina, and dwarfing the #3 slot (Ike, in 2008) by a factor of 2.