4 ms·

Oh. People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh? Certainly your own biases, poli

by logjam 18y ago

Oh. People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh? Certainly your own biases, politics, and ideology aren't apparent from your prose, right? Plenty of good scientists besides Freeman Dyson (one of my own personal heroes) have looked at the good science on the issue, and have concluded man's activities are causing harm.

eugenejen 18y ago
You jump to conclusion too fast before reading the article. If you read it, you will know Dyson doesn't deny that human being's activities create the current global warming. But he doubts the consequences are as dire as what activists describe in their propaganda.
- Tichy 18y ago
  So even Dyson says there is man-made warming, but still people who believe in man-made warming are ignorant, stubborn nutcases who have no understanding of science? This is getting a bit confusing...
  - dejb 18y ago
    Actually Dyson seems to be hedging his bets on whether it is caused by man. He seems less convinced than the conventional view but accepts it could be the case. His main point is that it won't be so bad or could even be good. The confusing part is why the global warming deniers would so instantly rush to him as verification of their views.
  - Rod 18y ago
    It is not exactly "confusing". The problem (as I see it) is that the question "does man cause Global Warming?" is ill-posed. OK, let us say that we have a mathematical model of the global climate: a bunch of partial differential equations describing heat and mass flow, etc etc etc. Since humans burn fuels and release C02 on the atmosphere, it is obvious that man influences the weather. The real question is not "whether", but "how much". The Sun's cycles also influence the weather. Varying levels of cosmic radiation also influence the weather. And if it's possible that the climate is indeed changing dramatically, what does "global warming" actually mean? The max temperatures are rising? Or does it mean that the average temperatures are rising? This is such a complex problem that interpreting it as a "yes / no question" is infuriating to say the least. Some people want to compress the entire global climate problem in one single bit of information. It's pathetic. And what pisses me off is that there are hords of ignorants who believe this is a "religious war" against big oil and corporate America and claim that anyone who dissents is an heretic who was bought by the dirty capitalists and who should be burned at the stake.
Rod 18y ago
"People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh?" No. You didn't get the point. Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. In the old days, people seemed to know the boundaries of their knowledge, now everybody who has internet access believes he / she is an instant expert.
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.
  - robotrout 18y ago
    Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that information, and how he verifies it's truth is another matter. I suppose I would support your right to try to convince others to a point of view that you know nothing about. But in a better world than we live in, people would seriously question the wisdom of doing this, and talk about baseball instead.
    - raintrees 18y ago
      Aren't many lobbyists resembling the "might makes right" practices? From what little I understand so far, there is quite a bit of money involved, and decisions do not always seem to be as honest and altruistic when the amounts get large enough. And aren't the politicians replacing responding to populism and mob voice with the loudest voices nearest them? Especially those that may finance the politicians' agendas? I am frequently bewildered by some of the decisions made and enacted/codified into law, and must conclude that I obviously do not understand all of the agendas being served in those instances. It is beginning to seem to me that the current lobbying system is akin to the current union system in that it may no longer be as beneficial as it once was in its current form.
endtime 18y ago
Rod's comment didn't seem biased, but yours sure does. Not intended as a flame, of course - just trying to point out that you are kind of proving his point.

by logjam 18y ago

eugenejen 18y ago

You jump to conclusion too fast before reading the article. If you read it, you will know Dyson doesn't deny that human being's activities create the current global warming. But he doubts the consequences are as dire as what activists describe in their propaganda.

Tichy 18y ago
So even Dyson says there is man-made warming, but still people who believe in man-made warming are ignorant, stubborn nutcases who have no understanding of science? This is getting a bit confusing...
- dejb 18y ago
  Actually Dyson seems to be hedging his bets on whether it is caused by man. He seems less convinced than the conventional view but accepts it could be the case. His main point is that it won't be so bad or could even be good. The confusing part is why the global warming deniers would so instantly rush to him as verification of their views.
- Rod 18y ago
  It is not exactly "confusing". The problem (as I see it) is that the question "does man cause Global Warming?" is ill-posed. OK, let us say that we have a mathematical model of the global climate: a bunch of partial differential equations describing heat and mass flow, etc etc etc. Since humans burn fuels and release C02 on the atmosphere, it is obvious that man influences the weather. The real question is not "whether", but "how much". The Sun's cycles also influence the weather. Varying levels of cosmic radiation also influence the weather. And if it's possible that the climate is indeed changing dramatically, what does "global warming" actually mean? The max temperatures are rising? Or does it mean that the average temperatures are rising? This is such a complex problem that interpreting it as a "yes / no question" is infuriating to say the least. Some people want to compress the entire global climate problem in one single bit of information. It's pathetic. And what pisses me off is that there are hords of ignorants who believe this is a "religious war" against big oil and corporate America and claim that anyone who dissents is an heretic who was bought by the dirty capitalists and who should be burned at the stake.

Rod 18y ago

"People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh?" No. You didn't get the point. Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. In the old days, people seemed to know the boundaries of their knowledge, now everybody who has internet access believes he / she is an instant expert.

radu_floricica 18y ago
At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.
- robotrout 18y ago
  Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that information, and how he verifies it's truth is another matter. I suppose I would support your right to try to convince others to a point of view that you know nothing about. But in a better world than we live in, people would seriously question the wisdom of doing this, and talk about baseball instead.
  - raintrees 18y ago
    Aren't many lobbyists resembling the "might makes right" practices? From what little I understand so far, there is quite a bit of money involved, and decisions do not always seem to be as honest and altruistic when the amounts get large enough. And aren't the politicians replacing responding to populism and mob voice with the loudest voices nearest them? Especially those that may finance the politicians' agendas? I am frequently bewildered by some of the decisions made and enacted/codified into law, and must conclude that I obviously do not understand all of the agendas being served in those instances. It is beginning to seem to me that the current lobbying system is akin to the current union system in that it may no longer be as beneficial as it once was in its current form.

endtime 18y ago

Rod's comment didn't seem biased, but yours sure does. Not intended as a flame, of course - just trying to point out that you are kind of proving his point.