6 ms·

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

13 points by nickb 18y ago

overreact 18y ago
This is a forum posting by some editor -- a single person -- of the APS. The official stance[1] says that evidence of global warming is "incontrovertible". Besides, it seems to go on to say that there is usefulness in finding alternative fuels anyways. Of course, we all know what the OP's statement will be used for and alternative energy is certainly not it. 1 - http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
ajross 18y ago
How about linking to the actual source instead of a flamebait media piece? Good grief: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm I'm having a little trouble finding the "explosion" in that text. They're publishing one paper by a presumptive skeptic, and are (ZOMG!) open to debate. Yeah, that's blown the consensus thing wide open, it has...
- llimllib 18y ago
  Also, whoops, let's keep this in small print: > Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
- thaumaturgy 18y ago
  Let's also take a closer look at the two groups being asked to write the opposing opinions. On the dissenting side, we have Christopher Monckton. Mr. Monckton is not a scientist by trade; he is, first and foremost, a politician, and a businessman next. He has recommended that the AIDS epidemic be dealt with by forcefully quarantining all individuals in the U.S. and U.K. who are infected. His policies and positions are similar to those of the current U.S. neo-conservative; you might imagine that Dick Cheney wrote an article critical of anthropogenic climate change, and you wouldn't be far off the mark. On the supporting side, we have David Hafemeister (I didn't bother Googling "Peter Schwartz"). David holds a PhD in physics from the University of Illinois, and is currently employed at CalPoly. He has authored or coauthored a ... well, shall we say, "respectable" number of books, and an even larger quantity of papers. Peer-reviewed papers, no less. The next time you're feeling lazy, you might want to read his c.v. [http://www.calpoly.edu/~dhafemei/dh_cv_1107.pdf http://www.calpoly.edu/~dhafemei/dh_cv_1107.pdf]. Disclaimer: I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority, and I do happen to think that some aspects of human impact on global climate have been politicized and blown out of proportion -- somewhat. I have always advocated the approach that we should try to live as efficiently as possible, leaving as small of a footprint on the planet as possible, even while continuing to understand all of the mechanisms involved in global climate patterns. That said, I think it's just silly to lend any credence whatsoever to the dissenting opinion in this case, and it's certainly ridiculous to claim that the "myth" of global warming has been "blown wide open".
  - 1gor 18y ago
    Why do you need to focus on personalities? Is it because the arguments are too persuasive to discuss?
    - thaumaturgy 18y ago
      I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish. Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored. In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC. Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system. I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton. And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.
      - 1gor 18y ago
        The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in. A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show. P.S. Sorry for the Godwin's.
        18y ago
- sanj 18y ago
  Isn't the point of science to debate? Ideally based on data?
jerry5 18y ago
Probably a a good time to remember that nickb = pg (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152361), which also explains the spate of climate change denialism which swamps this otherwise largely sane site (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=242215 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=242215).
- thaumaturgy 18y ago
  nickb != pg; that little bit of confusion stems entirely from a silly April Fool's Day joke this year [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152464 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152464]. Unless you really think pg would have gone to the trouble of accessing his sock puppet account to congratulate himself and Jessica on their wedding day [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205946 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205946].
  - jerry5 18y ago
    With all the ventriliquists that I have seen that's exactly the sort of thing their sock puppets do.
    - rms 18y ago
      ok it is kind of a funny meme but nickb is really not pg.
- davidw 18y ago
  Climate change - "for" or "against" - is not hacker news and that should be pointed out any time someone posts something about it.
- axod 18y ago
  Do people deny climate change? I don't think so. People are however very skeptical that it's all down to us humans. I'd say that's a sane viewpoint.
  - jerry5 18y ago
m0nty 18y ago
Hmmm, let's leave global warming aside for a few moments and consider the other reasons to stop polluting: * We're running out of oil. * Oil costs too much. * The oil we do have comes from unstable parts of the world with political regimes we might prefer to avoid providing money to. * We face increased competition for fuel from developing nations like India and China. * There are other environmental effects of pollution in addition to global warming. * Our current reliance on "dirty fuels" is (quite probably) leading to an increase in respiratory diseases like asthma in developed countries. * Our activities in general are leading to species and habitat loss at an unprecedented rate -- effectively, we are an extinction event. I think too many "global warming sceptics" are motivated either by a desire to carry on as normal, or (as Homer Simpson put it) not letting "the environmentalists win". But clearly, we need to find alternative energy sources regardless of global warming, and we need to do it now.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Aren't those all things that will cause us to stop polluting, not reasons to stop polluting? If the price of a polluting fuel goes up, because it's scarce, it acts as a tax on pollution. And the density of dangerous particles in the air has gone way, way down over the last few hundred years in large cities. So that seems like less of a concern.
  - m0nty 18y ago
    I agree that recent events have caused people to look for alternative fuel sources, but there's no guarantee we'll end up with clean alternative fuel sources. That should be made a priority. Biofuels, for example, have clearly been a disaster in broad terms (food supply and expense, etc) and there's been some doubt about how clean they really are. Re. your second point: we don't have smogs in most western nations today, but there are other effects specifically from motor fuels, particularly diesel, which creates more particulate matter than petroleum. This has been implicated in the increased incidence of asthma in western nations, and is also thought to exacerbate hay fever. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280198?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280198?dopt=AbstractPlu...
Anon84 18y ago
"Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet)." -- From the original APS article http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
dominik 18y ago
Suppose climate change is real. What do we do about it? Massive centralization and government control? Or free-market based solutions, based on: 1. restoring individual property rights, 2. re-classifying pollution as trespass rather than nuisance, 3. providing legal remedy?
- jerry5 18y ago
  Mister, property rights and the legal system are entirely functions implemented by a centralized government. So it's not either/or. It's just a question of which centralized government mechanism we want. Trespassing laws and the legal system were created to keep my neighbor from building the extension to his house onto my lawn. I don't see how I can sue someone from the other side of the world that's polluting my air with their CO2 under the same system.
- jerry5 18y ago
  P.S. This seems right out of the mouth of Ron Paul, who to my amazement seemed to have developed some following on reddit. 'Amazing' because his ideas don't even withstand superficial scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that forums like this apply to ideas.

13 points by nickb 18y ago

This is a forum posting by some editor -- a single person -- of the APS. The official stance[1] says that evidence of global warming is "incontrovertible". Besides, it seems to go on to say that there is usefulness in finding alternative fuels anyways. Of course, we all know what the OP's statement will be used for and alternative energy is certainly not it. 1 - http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

ajross 18y ago

How about linking to the actual source instead of a flamebait media piece? Good grief: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm I'm having a little trouble finding the "explosion" in that text. They're publishing one paper by a presumptive skeptic, and are (ZOMG!) open to debate. Yeah, that's blown the consensus thing wide open, it has...

llimllib 18y ago
Also, whoops, let's keep this in small print: > Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
thaumaturgy 18y ago
Let's also take a closer look at the two groups being asked to write the opposing opinions. On the dissenting side, we have Christopher Monckton. Mr. Monckton is not a scientist by trade; he is, first and foremost, a politician, and a businessman next. He has recommended that the AIDS epidemic be dealt with by forcefully quarantining all individuals in the U.S. and U.K. who are infected. His policies and positions are similar to those of the current U.S. neo-conservative; you might imagine that Dick Cheney wrote an article critical of anthropogenic climate change, and you wouldn't be far off the mark. On the supporting side, we have David Hafemeister (I didn't bother Googling "Peter Schwartz"). David holds a PhD in physics from the University of Illinois, and is currently employed at CalPoly. He has authored or coauthored a ... well, shall we say, "respectable" number of books, and an even larger quantity of papers. Peer-reviewed papers, no less. The next time you're feeling lazy, you might want to read his c.v. [http://www.calpoly.edu/~dhafemei/dh_cv_1107.pdf http://www.calpoly.edu/~dhafemei/dh_cv_1107.pdf]. Disclaimer: I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority, and I do happen to think that some aspects of human impact on global climate have been politicized and blown out of proportion -- somewhat. I have always advocated the approach that we should try to live as efficiently as possible, leaving as small of a footprint on the planet as possible, even while continuing to understand all of the mechanisms involved in global climate patterns. That said, I think it's just silly to lend any credence whatsoever to the dissenting opinion in this case, and it's certainly ridiculous to claim that the "myth" of global warming has been "blown wide open".
- 1gor 18y ago
  Why do you need to focus on personalities? Is it because the arguments are too persuasive to discuss?
  - thaumaturgy 18y ago
    I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish. Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored. In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC. Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system. I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton. And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.
    - 1gor 18y ago
      The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in. A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show. P.S. Sorry for the Godwin's.
      - 18y ago
sanj 18y ago
Isn't the point of science to debate? Ideally based on data?

jerry5 18y ago

Probably a a good time to remember that nickb = pg (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152361), which also explains the spate of climate change denialism which swamps this otherwise largely sane site (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=242215 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=242215).

thaumaturgy 18y ago
nickb != pg; that little bit of confusion stems entirely from a silly April Fool's Day joke this year [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152464 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152464]. Unless you really think pg would have gone to the trouble of accessing his sock puppet account to congratulate himself and Jessica on their wedding day [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205946 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205946].
- jerry5 18y ago
  With all the ventriliquists that I have seen that's exactly the sort of thing their sock puppets do.
  - rms 18y ago
    ok it is kind of a funny meme but nickb is really not pg.
davidw 18y ago
Climate change - "for" or "against" - is not hacker news and that should be pointed out any time someone posts something about it.
axod 18y ago
Do people deny climate change? I don't think so. People are however very skeptical that it's all down to us humans. I'd say that's a sane viewpoint.
- jerry5 18y ago

m0nty 18y ago

Hmmm, let's leave global warming aside for a few moments and consider the other reasons to stop polluting: * We're running out of oil. * Oil costs too much. * The oil we do have comes from unstable parts of the world with political regimes we might prefer to avoid providing money to. * We face increased competition for fuel from developing nations like India and China. * There are other environmental effects of pollution in addition to global warming. * Our current reliance on "dirty fuels" is (quite probably) leading to an increase in respiratory diseases like asthma in developed countries. * Our activities in general are leading to species and habitat loss at an unprecedented rate -- effectively, we are an extinction event. I think too many "global warming sceptics" are motivated either by a desire to carry on as normal, or (as Homer Simpson put it) not letting "the environmentalists win". But clearly, we need to find alternative energy sources regardless of global warming, and we need to do it now.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Aren't those all things that will cause us to stop polluting, not reasons to stop polluting? If the price of a polluting fuel goes up, because it's scarce, it acts as a tax on pollution. And the density of dangerous particles in the air has gone way, way down over the last few hundred years in large cities. So that seems like less of a concern.
- m0nty 18y ago
  I agree that recent events have caused people to look for alternative fuel sources, but there's no guarantee we'll end up with clean alternative fuel sources. That should be made a priority. Biofuels, for example, have clearly been a disaster in broad terms (food supply and expense, etc) and there's been some doubt about how clean they really are. Re. your second point: we don't have smogs in most western nations today, but there are other effects specifically from motor fuels, particularly diesel, which creates more particulate matter than petroleum. This has been implicated in the increased incidence of asthma in western nations, and is also thought to exacerbate hay fever. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280198?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280198?dopt=AbstractPlu...

Anon84 18y ago

"Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet)." -- From the original APS article http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

dominik 18y ago

Suppose climate change is real. What do we do about it? Massive centralization and government control? Or free-market based solutions, based on: 1. restoring individual property rights, 2. re-classifying pollution as trespass rather than nuisance, 3. providing legal remedy?

jerry5 18y ago
Mister, property rights and the legal system are entirely functions implemented by a centralized government. So it's not either/or. It's just a question of which centralized government mechanism we want. Trespassing laws and the legal system were created to keep my neighbor from building the extension to his house onto my lawn. I don't see how I can sue someone from the other side of the world that's polluting my air with their CO2 under the same system.
jerry5 18y ago
P.S. This seems right out of the mouth of Ron Paul, who to my amazement seemed to have developed some following on reddit. 'Amazing' because his ideas don't even withstand superficial scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that forums like this apply to ideas.