3 ms·
> I agree with Popper's definition of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > A discipline is scie
by wallace_f 10y ago
> I agree with Popper's definition of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
> A discipline is scientific if it is possible to challenge it, if it can be proven wrong (it doesn't mean it will, but there is a way to prove it wrong).
Thank you for that. I feel relieved (and on HN, a little bit personally vindicated) for seeing this.
In the past I've posted 'about taking the climate change alarmism with a grain of salt.' I've had people attack me personally for that. I've had people write to me on here about 'Mad Max' scenarios, and that climate change could lead people to resort to nuclear war.
The fact is that greenhouse gas emissions leading to long-term temperature rise is what is science. The alarmism, Mad Max scenarios, and the idea that technological progress will not be able to help us adapt (or what is especially heretical, reap the rewards of new resources: countries are already beginning to squabble over these, yet even mentioning they exist garners immediate scorn for expressing such a blasphemous idea--it does not garner informed debate!) is what is politics.
That said, I agree with the author we should take action against climate change: we have a long history of basically screwing up our environment on earth, we should try to tread more carefully in the future.
The whole thing also reminds me of what some criticized the War on Poverty for: the industry has become a movement of individuals whose careers and institutions have, perhaps, become more important than the underlying cause of the movement itself.
Trying to express these ideas reminds me of this quote:
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- cm2187 10y agoAgree, there are many good reasons to reduce pollution. The first of which is not to live in a toxic environment, health issues, inconvenience, etc. But I cannot take seriously the UNFCCC agreement in Paris, where countries were negotiating fractions of a degree celcius like if it was something tangible and deterministic.
- inimino 10y agoIt's a proxy for painful changes that will require hard political work. If they used equivalent tons of carbon dioxide, the same discussions would be taking place, so what's your problem with it?
- wallace_f 10y ago> will require hard political work. You have bought what they are selling
- inimino 10y agoI certainly do buy that painful change is better than the likely outcomes of doing nothing. The idea that climate change predictions aren't science because we must act before the long-term predictions could theoretically be falsified is a bit of a red herring. What exactly would a scientific prediction look like, then? If extended fully, your argument implies that science can literally never make any policy recommendations.
- wallace_f 10y agoI'm saying you've bought into their 'hard political work.' I already said I agree with the idea that we should work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Think about this: Do we need a committee to discuss the number of hurricanes in the year 2019, their magnitude, and whatever other 'hard political work' comes with that? What about earthquakes? What you're buying into is an industry of politics.
- MawNicker 10y agoThat's only true if they're actually politicians and not tortured hostages.
- inimino 10y agoIf we agree that international action is needed on climate change, how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? If you're arguing that we don't need governments to get involved, I don't see that working out.
- wallace_f 10y ago> how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? You're really personally invest in this. If you read the article, you would be able to begin to answer your own question. One way is a carbon tax: there's reasons why economists so vehemently recommend this. It is efficient, uses market forces instead of heavy handed regulation, and doesn't offer free subsidies to polluters (cap and trade systems have already done this). I never said government should not get involved... You should do some reading about environmental economics, and spend some time away from publications published by organizations who have a vested interest in the global warming problem.