4 ms·

The problem with your line of thinking is that Climate Change isn't N vs NP. This stops being a scientific problem when it becomes a political one. I'm not go

The problem with your line of thinking is that Climate Change isn't N vs NP. This stops being a scientific problem when it becomes a political one. I'm not going to let someone tell me what I can and can't do just because they have a PhD and a model that proclaims doom.

rayiner 13y ago
> The problem with your line of thinking is that Climate Change isn't N vs NP. Neither is say high-speed aerodynamics. We can't predict where a particular air molecule will go in a turbulent flow. We have only approximate closed-form models, and do most work in simulation and by fitting empirical data to simplified approximate equations and tweeking constants until things come out right. Yet airplanes still fly and people don't get on the internet armchair talking about how Boeing's aerodynamicists are wrong. > This stops being a scientific problem when it becomes a political one. I'm not going to let someone tell me what I can and can't do just because they have a PhD and a model that proclaims doom. Deniers live in a world where people can tell them what they can and cannot do.[1] Deniers know this, so they attack the scientific conclusions because they know that the public will, quite rationally,[2] tell them what you can and cannot do if they believe there is even a substantial chance that the climate scientists are correct. [1] That's the quid pro quo isn't it? The public tells big strong guys that they can't go around killing and eating people, and consequently reserves the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do. [2] It is of course eminently rational to take even very expensive corrective action in the face of a low probability but extremely high cost negative scenario.
- IanDrake 13y ago
  I can't really make heads or tails of what you wrote, but I assume from footnote 2 that your currently wearing a bullet proof vest because there's a small probability that you could get shot.
tptacek 13y ago
Do you mean to say P vs NP, or is this some new bit of jargon I should know?
- IanDrake 13y ago
  Ha! Good eye.

rayiner 13y ago

> The problem with your line of thinking is that Climate Change isn't N vs NP. Neither is say high-speed aerodynamics. We can't predict where a particular air molecule will go in a turbulent flow. We have only approximate closed-form models, and do most work in simulation and by fitting empirical data to simplified approximate equations and tweeking constants until things come out right. Yet airplanes still fly and people don't get on the internet armchair talking about how Boeing's aerodynamicists are wrong. > This stops being a scientific problem when it becomes a political one. I'm not going to let someone tell me what I can and can't do just because they have a PhD and a model that proclaims doom. Deniers live in a world where people can tell them what they can and cannot do.[1] Deniers know this, so they attack the scientific conclusions because they know that the public will, quite rationally,[2] tell them what you can and cannot do if they believe there is even a substantial chance that the climate scientists are correct. [1] That's the quid pro quo isn't it? The public tells big strong guys that they can't go around killing and eating people, and consequently reserves the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do. [2] It is of course eminently rational to take even very expensive corrective action in the face of a low probability but extremely high cost negative scenario.

IanDrake 13y ago
I can't really make heads or tails of what you wrote, but I assume from footnote 2 that your currently wearing a bullet proof vest because there's a small probability that you could get shot.

tptacek 13y ago

Do you mean to say P vs NP, or is this some new bit of jargon I should know?

IanDrake 13y ago
Ha! Good eye.