5 ms·

For balance, I would point out that there is an alternative point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38

For balance, I would point out that there is an alternative point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI I find it hard to know what to believe. 5 years ago it seemed clear everything was going to hell in a handbasket, now I'm more sceptical, a lot more sceptical, but ultimately unsure. I'd feel a lot less sceptical if those disagreeing weren't immediately crushed and silenced. If they are so clearly wrong, surely it is easy to show that? Moral emergencies cause humans to behave very badly. Lynch mobs and all that, or Cursaders up to their knees in blood on behalf of their God.

garmaine 7y ago
I bookmarked your link, and will watch it later. Since you seem open to thinking critically about the effects of both climate change and green policy, I’d recommend Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair,” if you haven’t read it already. It follows the trajectory of the malthusian anti-human movement over the last 225 years, culminating in today’s problem of climate change alarmism. Global climate Change is a real thing, albeit with consequences and timelines that are wildly exaggerated by the alarmist movement, and simply throwing insane amounts of money at renewables is not going to solve the problems that arise. PS: your post (and mine) are going to end up hidden from view in no time at all. Unfortunately even in HN there is a hive mind that censors discussion of trade offs :(
- Oletros 7y ago
  Who are the alarmist movement? Are climate scientists alarmists?
  - garmaine 7y ago
    > Who are the alarmist movements? I assume you mean who represents them, as it isn’t an organization I’m naming. A generation ago Al Gore would have been the figurehead of the alarmist movement. Now it is Greta Thunberg and green policy makers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. > Are climate scientists alarmists? Some are, usually when they back predictions outside their specialty or make the mistake of applying scientific nodes of thought to (geo)engineering problems and unsurprisingly come up short. Most are more reserved in how they present themselves and/or understand that our prediction capability is still quite limited and the non-specialist public doesn’t understand the nuances of qualified statements about future outcomes. Unfortunately evo-activists have cherry picked data, neglecting to mention that global climate has been historically much warmer than now, that rising levels of fixed nitrogen thanks to artificial fertilizer is causing increase of the biome which sequesters carbon in biomass. Some facts presented are outright wrong: rising temperatures means higher atmospheric water capacity and therefore more precipitation, not drought, and fewer numbers of storms (albeit greater in magnitude). Deaths due to changing climate have consistently fallen year over year for as long as such things were measured. The alarmist narrative is that basically that civilization will fall apart in the next 10-15 years, there will be mass die offs, and the world will be reduced to some sort of Mad Max / Waterworld post-apocalyptic anarchy. It’s bunk, just as the same imminent doom predictions were over the last 40 years. Climate change is real, but nothing even close to that order of magnitude will happen in the next 100 years. And a 100 years is more than enough time to have a sensibly paced transition to nuclear base power supplementing fluctuating renewables, and to develop geoengineering technologies to effectively manage both regional and global climate change. It’s somewhere on the scale closer to Y2K bug, not nuclear holocaust. But this climate change alarmism is causing our kids to develop acute anxiety and depression disorders, as Greta Thunberg has, which are totally misplaced, and I pity those kids and feel anger towards the adults in their lives that are doing psychological damage. The alarmism is also driving policy recommendations that would bring about global recession on a scale not seen since the Great Depression. If millennials think boomers gave them the short stick, wait until their children see what lack of opportunities they have from our misguided climate change policies. Edit: Lol, posted and within seconds a negative score. This is always what happens when you attempt to have a reasonable discussion about scientific facts and engineering trade-offs in climate change rather than an alarmist circle-jerk. I don’t know why I bother. Why do we let such important scientific topics become politicized?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      >The alarmist narrative is that basically that civilization will fall apart in the next 10-15 years No that's no that's not the narrative. The narrative is that we have about eight years of emissions left if we want a coin toss chance of staying below 1.5°. The narrative is that we finally need to start listening to the IPCC instead of pretending that we have another fifty years of business as usual left.
      - MikeOfAu 7y ago
        I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a continually rolling narrative about an impending catastrophe in 15 years from now. In 1988, New York was going to be underwater by 2000. Etc. It is crazy to look back at the endless series of predictions - all of them very alarming and all of them, it turns out, completely wrong. It is also worth remembering that in the 1970s the huge, science-based headline was that we were sliding into an ice age. The 1930s and 1940s had been particularly hot, and by the 1970s the decline in average temps had everyone worried. Newspapers ate it up. Like they are now. The predictions were alarming.
        adrianN 7y ago
        You're confusing the media narrative with the scientific consensus. The predictions that the IPCC made haven't changed all that much since the nineties. The ice age things was never a majority opinion, more papers predicted warming than cooling.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        Which is bogus. Have you read the IPCC report? I have. The prediction that estimate is based on is a worst case prediction. Actually it is even worse that that: it is a non-dynamic model designed specifically to give maximally bad outcomes as an impossibility conservative bounding exercise for the things that we don’t know how to model. The scientific consensus is not what is being stated in alarmist messaging. And the IPCC estimates assume no attempt is made to manage climate change, even things which will be done anyway like building new dams and waterway bypasses to handle greater precipitation events and put water to productive use. Those same Malthusian arguments made on the supposition of zero human ingenuity have been shouted in earnest alarm for the past two centuries. And every time they have been wrong. This time is no different.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't downvote-bait like you did at the end there. It's off topic, against the site guidelines and guarantees downvotes regardless of what else you said. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- MikeOfAu 7y ago
  The thread hanging off this post (which had nothing to do with downvoting) has been "disappeared". That leaves a bad taste. It seems unnecessary.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    It's not how you create an atmosphere conductive to discussion. The downvote-related addendum (which I would edit out if I could, but the edit window has passed) was thrown in due to frustration. Writing a post skeptical of climate alarmism on any social media feels like pissing in the wind. On HN or Reddit it gets instantly down-voted into oblivion without any meaningful responses. On Facebook or Twitter it just gets you categorized weird and future posts shown to only fringe denier cranks. I knew you would see it, but probably few others, so why bother? And sure enough, the thread got collapsed by a moderator. We should reward posts that think critically and bring up facts you might not be aware of, even if they're arguing against something you thought was settled. Doing otherwise is not healthy for the utility of the platform :\
cookie_monsta 7y ago
Before you draw too many conclusions from the outcome of the professor's unfair dismissal trial, please bear in mind what the judge said in passing judgment: “Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views. “Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.” There are always going to be "alternative points of view" but when 99% of the world's scientists are in agreement on something it's probably worth taking their word for it.
- MikeOfAu 7y ago
  I draw no conclusions about his legal win. But I do note that he is a scientist who worked on the reef and he completely disagrees. I additionally note that he was pretty aggressively silenced and his livelihood taken away, "unfairly" according to the courts. I worry that this is how you get to 99% - crushing dissent through intimidation, and not debating? He says he only spoke up because he was so close to retirement age, and he was only able to achieve a legal win because of crowdfunding. Most other scientists are not in that position - the consequences of speaking up would appear terrifying. Dunno, maybe he is a complete crank, but you can see how it might give a dispassionate observer pause for thought and a bit of discomfort.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm pretty sure I'll never be an expert in climate science. So when a near consensus of actual experts in climate science say that something is happening I'm happy to believe them and move on to pondering other mysteries that aren't so clear-cut. That this guy opposes that consensus and takes funding from interest groups like the IPA, mining companies and cane growers leads me to another, quite possibly equally lazy conclusion. That he was not treated fairly, I'll take the judge's word on that, too. The university's position was, ironically, partially about the quality of the debate: “The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance. However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”

garmaine 7y ago

I bookmarked your link, and will watch it later. Since you seem open to thinking critically about the effects of both climate change and green policy, I’d recommend Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair,” if you haven’t read it already. It follows the trajectory of the malthusian anti-human movement over the last 225 years, culminating in today’s problem of climate change alarmism. Global climate Change is a real thing, albeit with consequences and timelines that are wildly exaggerated by the alarmist movement, and simply throwing insane amounts of money at renewables is not going to solve the problems that arise. PS: your post (and mine) are going to end up hidden from view in no time at all. Unfortunately even in HN there is a hive mind that censors discussion of trade offs :(

Oletros 7y ago
Who are the alarmist movement? Are climate scientists alarmists?
- garmaine 7y ago
  > Who are the alarmist movements? I assume you mean who represents them, as it isn’t an organization I’m naming. A generation ago Al Gore would have been the figurehead of the alarmist movement. Now it is Greta Thunberg and green policy makers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. > Are climate scientists alarmists? Some are, usually when they back predictions outside their specialty or make the mistake of applying scientific nodes of thought to (geo)engineering problems and unsurprisingly come up short. Most are more reserved in how they present themselves and/or understand that our prediction capability is still quite limited and the non-specialist public doesn’t understand the nuances of qualified statements about future outcomes. Unfortunately evo-activists have cherry picked data, neglecting to mention that global climate has been historically much warmer than now, that rising levels of fixed nitrogen thanks to artificial fertilizer is causing increase of the biome which sequesters carbon in biomass. Some facts presented are outright wrong: rising temperatures means higher atmospheric water capacity and therefore more precipitation, not drought, and fewer numbers of storms (albeit greater in magnitude). Deaths due to changing climate have consistently fallen year over year for as long as such things were measured. The alarmist narrative is that basically that civilization will fall apart in the next 10-15 years, there will be mass die offs, and the world will be reduced to some sort of Mad Max / Waterworld post-apocalyptic anarchy. It’s bunk, just as the same imminent doom predictions were over the last 40 years. Climate change is real, but nothing even close to that order of magnitude will happen in the next 100 years. And a 100 years is more than enough time to have a sensibly paced transition to nuclear base power supplementing fluctuating renewables, and to develop geoengineering technologies to effectively manage both regional and global climate change. It’s somewhere on the scale closer to Y2K bug, not nuclear holocaust. But this climate change alarmism is causing our kids to develop acute anxiety and depression disorders, as Greta Thunberg has, which are totally misplaced, and I pity those kids and feel anger towards the adults in their lives that are doing psychological damage. The alarmism is also driving policy recommendations that would bring about global recession on a scale not seen since the Great Depression. If millennials think boomers gave them the short stick, wait until their children see what lack of opportunities they have from our misguided climate change policies. Edit: Lol, posted and within seconds a negative score. This is always what happens when you attempt to have a reasonable discussion about scientific facts and engineering trade-offs in climate change rather than an alarmist circle-jerk. I don’t know why I bother. Why do we let such important scientific topics become politicized?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    >The alarmist narrative is that basically that civilization will fall apart in the next 10-15 years No that's no that's not the narrative. The narrative is that we have about eight years of emissions left if we want a coin toss chance of staying below 1.5°. The narrative is that we finally need to start listening to the IPCC instead of pretending that we have another fifty years of business as usual left.
    - MikeOfAu 7y ago
      I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a continually rolling narrative about an impending catastrophe in 15 years from now. In 1988, New York was going to be underwater by 2000. Etc. It is crazy to look back at the endless series of predictions - all of them very alarming and all of them, it turns out, completely wrong. It is also worth remembering that in the 1970s the huge, science-based headline was that we were sliding into an ice age. The 1930s and 1940s had been particularly hot, and by the 1970s the decline in average temps had everyone worried. Newspapers ate it up. Like they are now. The predictions were alarming.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        You're confusing the media narrative with the scientific consensus. The predictions that the IPCC made haven't changed all that much since the nineties. The ice age things was never a majority opinion, more papers predicted warming than cooling.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Which is bogus. Have you read the IPCC report? I have. The prediction that estimate is based on is a worst case prediction. Actually it is even worse that that: it is a non-dynamic model designed specifically to give maximally bad outcomes as an impossibility conservative bounding exercise for the things that we don’t know how to model. The scientific consensus is not what is being stated in alarmist messaging. And the IPCC estimates assume no attempt is made to manage climate change, even things which will be done anyway like building new dams and waterway bypasses to handle greater precipitation events and put water to productive use. Those same Malthusian arguments made on the supposition of zero human ingenuity have been shouted in earnest alarm for the past two centuries. And every time they have been wrong. This time is no different.
dang 7y ago
Please don't downvote-bait like you did at the end there. It's off topic, against the site guidelines and guarantees downvotes regardless of what else you said. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MikeOfAu 7y ago
The thread hanging off this post (which had nothing to do with downvoting) has been "disappeared". That leaves a bad taste. It seems unnecessary.
- garmaine 7y ago
  It's not how you create an atmosphere conductive to discussion. The downvote-related addendum (which I would edit out if I could, but the edit window has passed) was thrown in due to frustration. Writing a post skeptical of climate alarmism on any social media feels like pissing in the wind. On HN or Reddit it gets instantly down-voted into oblivion without any meaningful responses. On Facebook or Twitter it just gets you categorized weird and future posts shown to only fringe denier cranks. I knew you would see it, but probably few others, so why bother? And sure enough, the thread got collapsed by a moderator. We should reward posts that think critically and bring up facts you might not be aware of, even if they're arguing against something you thought was settled. Doing otherwise is not healthy for the utility of the platform :\

cookie_monsta 7y ago

Before you draw too many conclusions from the outcome of the professor's unfair dismissal trial, please bear in mind what the judge said in passing judgment: “Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views. “Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.” There are always going to be "alternative points of view" but when 99% of the world's scientists are in agreement on something it's probably worth taking their word for it.

MikeOfAu 7y ago
I draw no conclusions about his legal win. But I do note that he is a scientist who worked on the reef and he completely disagrees. I additionally note that he was pretty aggressively silenced and his livelihood taken away, "unfairly" according to the courts. I worry that this is how you get to 99% - crushing dissent through intimidation, and not debating? He says he only spoke up because he was so close to retirement age, and he was only able to achieve a legal win because of crowdfunding. Most other scientists are not in that position - the consequences of speaking up would appear terrifying. Dunno, maybe he is a complete crank, but you can see how it might give a dispassionate observer pause for thought and a bit of discomfort.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm pretty sure I'll never be an expert in climate science. So when a near consensus of actual experts in climate science say that something is happening I'm happy to believe them and move on to pondering other mysteries that aren't so clear-cut. That this guy opposes that consensus and takes funding from interest groups like the IPA, mining companies and cane growers leads me to another, quite possibly equally lazy conclusion. That he was not treated fairly, I'll take the judge's word on that, too. The university's position was, ironically, partially about the quality of the debate: “The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance. However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”