4 ms·

I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypotheticall

by brc 17y ago

I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer." No, of course not. None of my posts indicate a dislike for clean renewable energy. I am an enthusiast of electric cars, passionate about ocean pollution, believer in locally based sustainability. It would be my ideal to have a self sufficient home with no fossil fuels providing energy. Hopefully I'll see that in my lifetime. However, I stop at correlation=causation, I distrust any non-testable computer models intensely (be they of the economic or climatic type) I'm also dubious about the 2% - it's also based on computer modelling and government forecasts, none of which I place the slightest faith in. The scientists are asking for peoples money - that's the whole point. Directly through more research grants and funding. Indirectly by asking for wealth transfers from people. "if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation." I completely reject that statement. I don't have to have an alternative view on any theory. Any theory on anything is completely rejectable without coming up with an alternative. It's perfectly logical to say "I don't have a better explanation, but you've failed to convince me".

jbooth 17y ago
Well, clearly several people are doing it, and I'd wager that they're also Republican voters, if we're going to play the statistics. That sort of rating seems to be abusive to me, and against the HN ethos, particularly if you can't be bothered to form a cogent response. Regarding not being convinced -- fine. But what's your incentive to go so far out of your way to discredit them? Correlation doesn't equal causation but when we have a plausible theory, correlation, and no other theories that come even close as far as the smell test, well, you've gotta do better than crossing your arms and proclaiming yourself unconvinced to be credible. Given that you agree that we should move to clean and renewable energy, what's your investment in tarring the scientific community? You try to bring it to grants.. what's that, a few dozen million worldwide for the whole climatology community? I'd think anyone who labels themselves intellectual would be proud to sponsor pure research. Basically, where's your beef come from, if it's not politics? Why aren't you trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution? You don't need an alternative to be unconvinced, right? That'd be easier than the warming one, frankly.
- brc 17y ago
  My beef is pretty simple : they're not doing good science. I always thought of them as well-meaning but misdirected researchers. Since the emails came out, I don't think they are that well meaning anymore. My problem with the whole thing is that to me, from day one in the late 1980's, the man-made global warming hypothesis has been full of contradicting information, alarmist predictions and became a political football. I don't believe the ends justify the means. I also don't like the money and 'public thought' that has been diverted from real, immediate environmental problems like ocean and air pollution, things that can be solved for a fraction of the price and will make real difference to people straight away.

by brc 17y ago

jbooth 17y ago

Well, clearly several people are doing it, and I'd wager that they're also Republican voters, if we're going to play the statistics. That sort of rating seems to be abusive to me, and against the HN ethos, particularly if you can't be bothered to form a cogent response. Regarding not being convinced -- fine. But what's your incentive to go so far out of your way to discredit them? Correlation doesn't equal causation but when we have a plausible theory, correlation, and no other theories that come even close as far as the smell test, well, you've gotta do better than crossing your arms and proclaiming yourself unconvinced to be credible. Given that you agree that we should move to clean and renewable energy, what's your investment in tarring the scientific community? You try to bring it to grants.. what's that, a few dozen million worldwide for the whole climatology community? I'd think anyone who labels themselves intellectual would be proud to sponsor pure research. Basically, where's your beef come from, if it's not politics? Why aren't you trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution? You don't need an alternative to be unconvinced, right? That'd be easier than the warming one, frankly.

brc 17y ago
My beef is pretty simple : they're not doing good science. I always thought of them as well-meaning but misdirected researchers. Since the emails came out, I don't think they are that well meaning anymore. My problem with the whole thing is that to me, from day one in the late 1980's, the man-made global warming hypothesis has been full of contradicting information, alarmist predictions and became a political football. I don't believe the ends justify the means. I also don't like the money and 'public thought' that has been diverted from real, immediate environmental problems like ocean and air pollution, things that can be solved for a fraction of the price and will make real difference to people straight away.