3 ms·

> Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urba

by quink 12y ago

> Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies. > We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy Complete and total horseshit. Even if you'd only assume that the scientists are 90% right any good actuaries will tell you that you should spend about 90% on measures that back up what they've put forward. Hacker News, I expected something better than this in the #2 spot. Here, read this: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Or this one is excellent: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Edit: Alright, here we go with the downvotes for calling out bullshit regarding climate change on Hacker News. Well, it's not like I expected any better. Next I expect a replies either trying to argue random points about how there were forests in Greenland in the middle ages or some pretensions about being open-minded. While still barely having a grasp of a periphery of relevant facts. But that's OK, the warriors having upvoted this to the top immediately know best. Or at least as well as Murdoch, publisher of the WSJ who has recently installed a prime minister in Australia who called climate change 'crap' and has abolished a carbon tax a minute fraction of those found in the rest of the OECD.

triangleman 12y ago
What's your point? That Dr. Koonin is not a trustworthy source because he worked for BP?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I would take the opinions of an industry expert with a large pinch of salt on the subject of negative externalities of the industry they are involved in, no matter what the industry.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  Yes?
igravious 12y ago
Whatever. I am sick to the back teeth of "the sky is falling!" rhetoric. I refuse to live in mortal fear for the future of humanity. The climate will change, big deal, we'll adapt -- the range of habitats humans inhabit far exceeds the variation in climate that individual habitats will experience. On the list of things to worry about climate change should be way down. But wow, you're so vocal -- because you feel that it is an existential threat. Newsflash, it ain't. Homelessness is a bigger problem. Ditto poverty and starvation. I _welcome_ the push back against the drumbeats and rhetoric and hope climate change disappears off the political agenda entirely. Some hope.
- Squarel 12y ago
  You don't think homelessness/starvation/food security/water security will be affected by any future changes in climate?
- quink 12y ago
  It is a bit of an existentialist threat. It's one of the possible answers to the Fermi paradox. Why haven't we met anyone? Because they boiled themselves to bits before they could interstellar space. Which, inherently, requires huge amounts of energy, possibly enough to change climates. I can't think of things more fundamental to existence or non-existence in this universe than it being the wrong temperature.
personZ 12y ago
Your reaction to this is exactly what is wrong with the discussion: I can stomach the person who talks down climate science because they fear for their job at the oil refinery or whatever, but when someone so viciously responds to someone simply saying that the common narrative about climate science is oversold (a simple truth that anyone with any rational sense understands), it is disturbing. It is when it is far past a rational scientific winnowing to an understanding, but instead has become religion. Wage your religious battle and set up the caricatures of anyone who might disagree, but you sway no one.
- quink 12y ago
  > climate science is oversold (a simple truth that anyone with any rational sense understands) Now replace 'climate science' with astrology on the one hand or astronomy on the other and you might understand why what you're saying is not at all helpful. That said, if he's bringing something new to the table, then I will lend him three ears. But first the strawman of whether climate science is settled (it won't ever be, just like statistical mechanics won't ever be 'settled', whatever that means), followed by plain wrongness and inaccuracies and only some minor salient points... while calling for what he's calling for is completely out of whack with not only what the IPCC but so many others have determined. No religion here, mate. And no, I don't think that climate change per se will be the extinction of the human race. If nothing else, we might still have the sulphur dim-the-sun kill switch. And yes, climate science is complicated and, yes, nuclear energy everything. Religion? Please...

by quink 12y ago

triangleman 12y ago

What's your point? That Dr. Koonin is not a trustworthy source because he worked for BP?

lotsofmangos 12y ago
I would take the opinions of an industry expert with a large pinch of salt on the subject of negative externalities of the industry they are involved in, no matter what the industry.
Daishiman 12y ago
Yes?

igravious 12y ago

Whatever. I am sick to the back teeth of "the sky is falling!" rhetoric. I refuse to live in mortal fear for the future of humanity. The climate will change, big deal, we'll adapt -- the range of habitats humans inhabit far exceeds the variation in climate that individual habitats will experience. On the list of things to worry about climate change should be way down. But wow, you're so vocal -- because you feel that it is an existential threat. Newsflash, it ain't. Homelessness is a bigger problem. Ditto poverty and starvation. I _welcome_ the push back against the drumbeats and rhetoric and hope climate change disappears off the political agenda entirely. Some hope.

Squarel 12y ago
You don't think homelessness/starvation/food security/water security will be affected by any future changes in climate?
quink 12y ago
It is a bit of an existentialist threat. It's one of the possible answers to the Fermi paradox. Why haven't we met anyone? Because they boiled themselves to bits before they could interstellar space. Which, inherently, requires huge amounts of energy, possibly enough to change climates. I can't think of things more fundamental to existence or non-existence in this universe than it being the wrong temperature.

personZ 12y ago

Your reaction to this is exactly what is wrong with the discussion: I can stomach the person who talks down climate science because they fear for their job at the oil refinery or whatever, but when someone so viciously responds to someone simply saying that the common narrative about climate science is oversold (a simple truth that anyone with any rational sense understands), it is disturbing. It is when it is far past a rational scientific winnowing to an understanding, but instead has become religion. Wage your religious battle and set up the caricatures of anyone who might disagree, but you sway no one.

quink 12y ago
> climate science is oversold (a simple truth that anyone with any rational sense understands) Now replace 'climate science' with astrology on the one hand or astronomy on the other and you might understand why what you're saying is not at all helpful. That said, if he's bringing something new to the table, then I will lend him three ears. But first the strawman of whether climate science is settled (it won't ever be, just like statistical mechanics won't ever be 'settled', whatever that means), followed by plain wrongness and inaccuracies and only some minor salient points... while calling for what he's calling for is completely out of whack with not only what the IPCC but so many others have determined. No religion here, mate. And no, I don't think that climate change per se will be the extinction of the human race. If nothing else, we might still have the sulphur dim-the-sun kill switch. And yes, climate science is complicated and, yes, nuclear energy everything. Religion? Please...