Hacker News Reader

Comment by guscost | Hacker News Reader

Time to spend some karma.

Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same tactic.

The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ evidence of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate.

I guess these folks think I must be unhappy about the "necessary solution" (oh hey, it turns out to be reorganizing society according to their political beliefs!) but that amounts to an elaborate and silly ad hominem, nothing more. I think I'll write more about the "psychology journal ad-hominem" because it has become annoyingly common in recent years.

The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it.

[0]http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00...

View on HN

> I remain astonished that supposedly educated people could ever believe otherwise

Let me take a stab at this:

> thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate

Sometimes, non-linearity doesn't really matter. Human body is complex system, we don't fully understand it, but you wouldn't stand in front of a car that runs 100kph. Because then we just know what is going to happen, from perfectly linear Newton's law.

In the 1950s, Plass did some equilibrium calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2. I think he came with a value around 2 degrees. Modern consensus is 3. This all happened despite decades of research, involving all sorts of additional non-linearities. What does that tell you? He was right in the ballpark, and he actually had a decent model!

Just as we cannot say what injuries you end up with in the first example, we cannot easily say what will happen to the Earth. But we are very certain it will heat up (and roughly how much). Unless of course humans on the Earth react non-linearly and decide not to emit more CO2, just like person in front of a car can somewhat non-linearly jump to the side.

Whoa, you're citing the consensus as an experimental result? What is this, economics? ;)

And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. Out of curiosity do you have a list?

There are many different empirical results that lead to current consensus of climate sensitivity. The consensus is the consequence of these. A good summary is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced... in figure 4.

> And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity.

AFAIK he only included CO2 and water vapor (as a feedback) in his calculations. There are many more both positive and negative feedbacks, such as methane or aerosols. But they pretty much cancel out in the end, as more complex models indicate. And Plass was completely ignorant of climate history, which is also one of the important sources of climate sensitivity estimates.

Have the models really changed that much in 35 years though? This one has all the highlights, radiation balance, 1D and 3D modeling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; and ocean heat uptake.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

They predict about half a degree C, and that seems to be holding up.

More interesting though, what would be convincing? Computers are fast. To paraphrase the red queen, we accurately predict 6 complex nonlinear systems before breakfast. Do you think there are other hidden effects that humans haven't observed? In what sense is it not settled?

This may come down to our individual philosophies, but I'm far more interested in what would convince you that a model is wrong. It's a Popperian sentiment, which may be considered quaint these days, but I rarely hear any kind of answer.

Anyway, I don't think we are talking about even close to the same meaning of "complex", but one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet, and an "experimental" planet, with nearly identical climates and biodiversity and so on, and then we raised the CO2 level of the experimental planet, keeping in mind that all kinds of other inputs to the non-linear system should remain the same, like land use, fishing, other industrial activities, etc. If the experimental planet diverged significantly from the control planet, it wouldn't be solid 100% irrefutable proof but it would be far better evidence than anything we have today.

>one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet

So on this one issue it's impossible for you to be convinced.

Not at all, there could be plenty of other evidence, I just can't imagine what it would be. Other than some kind of control planet, or maybe a complete overturning of nonlinear dynamics and/or chaos theory maybe.

Of course, if the ocean was engulfing whole communities faster than people could run uphill, or people were choking on CO2, I'd probably be a whole lot less rational about it and say "let's throw things at the wall to see what sticks."

But so far, and after reading what I figure are among the strongest arguments out there, it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.

Okay, ignore warming if you like. We still need to stop producing so much CO2 because it's acidifying the oceans and destroying ecosystems we depend on for food.

the thing about nonlinear dynamics/chaos is that it still allows for some degree of control and prediction -- not in the sense of being able to predict one specific trajectory, but in the sense of being able to make statistical predictions about likely regions for the trajectory to pass through, and even to be able to apply small controls to change a trajectory drastically and potentially keep it out of entire regions.

See, for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.... (yet another tribolium paper. The favorite insect of nonlinear dynamics and chaos books everywhere.)

I don't think we need to overturn anything mathematically to be able to talk sensibly about climate models, predictions, complex forcing mechanisms, and control. We just have to stop putting the cart before the horse (or the shady politician before the scientist) and look at what can be done to stabilize the ecosystem -- not necessarily worrying about catastrophic predictions, but simply looking at some of the measurable negative effects (like acidifying oceans, brought up in a sibling comment) and determining how to control the system in order to slow or even reverse those effects.

> I'd probably be a whole lot less rational...

I think you imagine that you are being very rational, because you've studied some climate science and believe you're intelligent enough to form your own judgement, but you're wrong. It's extremely irrational to dismiss the consensus opinion of climate science researchers based on your own (epistomologically limited, non-professional-climate-scientist) assessment of their research.

> it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.

And say the likelihood of this doomsday scenario being correct is 10% by your assessment: do you think a rational risk analysis would conclude that we should do nothing and go about business as usual? Do you also enjoy playing russian roulette when your not skimming climate science articles?

No, i'm with you. Falsification is a huge deal.

As far as "complex" goes, i'm thinking of the old strange attractor. I don't know if it'll rain on sept 19 2016, but i think it's safe to say there will be 3 inches of rain next september. If we refine our understanding and language, there's a nice probability density function for quantity of rain over the month of sept 2016. Not much probability around 0, not much beyond 6, but a big lump right there at 3.

I outright reject the "no model is possible" argument. If nothing else, it's that way because god wills it. Some folks argue weather is related to frequency of gay sex. I'm confident the above paper outperforms that model.

The nice thing about the above model is it is testable. we know historical variation around the prediction. We can make a prediction based on increasing CO2, then increase it, and see how our prediction plays out. (edit and we did, and the model was pretty good, but earth actually got warmer faster than the paper predicted http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evalua...)

So, anyway, weather works "somehow" and we can make forecasts. Although it's never been tested, i'm pretty sure Pat Robertson is wrong and it's not gay sex driven.

So, i still dont' get why it's not settled. The best models we have are refinements of the above paper. Is there some other model that gives better answerers?

I'll agree that your favorite model is lot more likely to work than the "because gay sex" model, because your favorite model presumably has causal relationships based on measurable reality.

And I like the idea that atmospheric composition could be a strange attractor in the climate system.

But then you'd have to throw the simple forcing model for CO2 out the window, and come up with a hypothesis for why there is a strange attractor somehow causing CO2 and temperature to exhibit a linear relationship. Wouldn't your favorite model have to be rewritten at that point?

And then you'd need an explanation for how the water vapor feedback forcing (a critical part of most alarmist models) fits into those dynamics. And why a similar albedo forcing or plant cover forcing or fracking-earthquake forcing or Chinese economic forcing does not. I don't think you will find it simple to describe at anything but the most abstract level. But it is an interesting idea.

Point me at the paper that outperforms that model. I'll do my best to read and understand it.

This is an irrelevant tangent, but I liked the previous dialogue.

He's asking you, "what causes you to see your belief as more valid, other than nihilism?" I wouldn't call that an irrelevant tangent.

I think we hit the max depth, so i'm replying here.

Yes, i enjoy civil rational discussions (well, i try to be rational) on HN. there's a bunch of smart people and it's fun.

Anyway, i think i get your point, allow me to phrase it this way "they may be getting the right answers, but they aren't getting the answers for the right reasons"

My handwavy counter argument is, Aristotle said "continuous motion requires continuous application of force" and he was wrong. But in day to day life, if you need to move the cart, you gotta keep pushing on it. He wasn't dead wrong, he did capture some essence the truth. Newton came along and got more of it. Einstein got even more.

Allow me to put a few more words in your mouth. I think you weakly agree with the climate scientists, not the crazy militants, but the grad students sitting in a tiny office doing math. You don't think they're dead wrong, they just don't have enough of the truth to be useful, newton hasn't come along yet and shown us how it all fits together.

Ok, i gotta go get some stuff done, but it was indeed thoughtful and fun.

Yep, that sounds fairly reasonable. I'm just an amateur philosopher of science so I don't really have my own theories to add here, but I do find a lot of what's out there interesting. I don't like seeing politicians run directly towards their favorite conclusions with whatever half-formed material they can find, because it actively subverts the interesting parts (and sure, I don't agree with the politics in this case).

> The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend

The notion of "proving" a future trend doesn't make sense. That's not how science works. You test a model against past data, and then people use the model to help them make decisions until we find a better model. Things are only ever proved after the fact.

> Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left.

That doesn't really follow. The promotion of a psychological study could be the result of alarmists running out of material as you describe, or it could just be one story in a queue of many others.

> Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense

Making generic insults at unnamed people and ideas doesn't really add anything to the conversation. Could you describe some actual nonsense that has someone's name attached to it so we could talk about it?

Science isn't about demanding legislation either.

And the entire OP is a thinly-veiled insult aimed at the authors' political opponents. That's the point I'm trying to make, although perhaps it could be made more politely.

The study (and the article) took pains to point out that what they observed is a universal phenomenon, as evidenced by liberals dismissing concerns about rising crime if the solution meant more guns and conservatives dismissing climate science if it meant more taxes.

A few discrepancies (maybe the actual paper clears these up if anyone has a copy):

- The global warming part is discussed in much more detail (i.e. actual percentages, the statement that Democrats didn't show different behavior).

- Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures, the available data regarding the former is a lot simpler to logically connect to "a problem" than the available data regarding the latter, etc.

- I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing, if that is in fact what researchers are claiming.

In short, it seems like the other half was thrown in there to suggest a balanced perspective (again, the actual paper may be different so this could only affect the press release).

Measuring the total number of violent break-ins

Is actually a bit hard. That's why we (our DOJ) and e.g. the U.K. mirror direct police reports (which have under-reporting by citizens and outright falsification by authorities) with surveys, and those of course have their own problems. But, yeah, easier than climate.

I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing

I think by this you mean you think the significant factions of the left claim violent crimes are increasing?

When violent crime has been decreasing for quite some time.... My favorite point to make here is that our post-WWII history may track demographics better than anything else, the thesis behind this being the more young men in your population, the more crimes.

Let me add a favorite statistic here: since I've been watching this closely, the number of people and guns in the US have increased by roughly 50%, and the absolute number of fatal gun accidents has dropped by 25%.

> Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures

That's a false comparison. Counting the number of violent break-ins is harder than measuring the increase in global temperatures, which is the fair metric to compare against. Instead of just setting up a bunch of thermometers and averaging the results, you have to settle on a definition of violent and comb through police statistics (to get the number of reported break-ins) and surveys (to get the number of unreported break-ins).

> I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing

The point of the paper is that when the proposed solution to a reported increase in violent crimes involved a policy liberals would object to, such a faction began to emerge. Whether violent crimes are actually increasing and whether liberals are currently denying said increase are both irrelevant.

The actual paper is linked to from the article posted. I only did a cursory read and didn't find it to be dripping with bias, but that's just my opinion. Here's a direct link to the paper: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/9256

No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance.

The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon).

Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks.

But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it).

And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.

Of the many factors you are not considering, albedo affects how much solar radiation (not all of it visible) is reflected back into space.

You are absolutely right, I oversimplified, but that has the advantage of giving us plenty of other experimental bodies to compare with (i.e. the solar system). For what it's worth, this oversimplification gives a pretty good average temperature of 15 deg celcius on earth.

Albedo is an important factor, but there is actually very much uncertainty about human influence on earths albedo, and at any rate the effect seems to be pretty small. Humans' effect on CO2 on the other hand is extremely well-established and much greater, which is why it's logical to focus on it.

Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography.

Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency.

Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU. And you know what? China would pick up the slack, and they hardly give a shit about anything. Right now,overdoing this locally actually increases net pollution. I guess we get to feel good.

Norway is not comparable to mainland EU, I'm not claiming that. But Norway does have an intensive oil and gas industry which emits copious amount of CO2. Because of the CO2 tax, they have implemented the worlds first (and only) commercial carbon-capture and storage (CCS) project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_gas_field#Carbon_capt...).

As for China stealing European industry, that's happening already, and it's really nothing a little protectionism can't help. Protectionism is bad, but so is losing jobs, and worse is acting like you are powerless when really you aren't.

We are not talking about protectionism, but not driving clean industry away with nonsensical excesses in pseudoecology (closing down the nukes is one example)

Also, Norway is just bad example, since they were literally rolling in cash. And, if most of your energy comes from hydro, a little feelgood CCS wont drive the price through the roof. Now, if you look at EU, it's mostly fossil fired or nukes. Close the nukes and force CCS on the rest - insane power costs

And don't give me solar, Germany is finding how it is failing. (Because every other day the energy prices go negative and wind/solar has right of way actual power plants go bankrupt. This in no way means they are unneeded,just that the law is broken)

A lot of the data we have is incredibly inaccurate, to say the least. A recent study from Yale stated that the actual number of trees on Earth is almost 8 times the number previously estimated. EIGHT times! If we can't even count freaking trees, do you expect me to trust numbers concerning much more complex models of the atmosphere?

Also, claiming the parent post is "clearly out of ignorance" is both arrogant and disrespectful. There are published reports from reputable sources postulating vastly different theses/opinions.

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

> You are clearly posting out of ignorance.

This seems to me a form of calling names, which the HN guidelines ask you not to do. Instead of telling someone that they are ignorant, it's more civil and substantive to simply post better information. They may or may not become less ignorant, but everyone else can learn something.

Why do you regard this as "evidence that the alarmists have very little material left"?

Are you suggesting that this was a "last resort" after "running out" of research in favor of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? Do you think that the Duke Fuqua School of Business is so tightly knit with the climate science community?

I think you may be biased by your hope that no further evidence surfaces; otherwise, how could you continue believing what you believe?

Take this not as criticism of your beliefs, but as criticism of how you cling to your beliefs. I try to be happy to be proven wrong, no matter the consequences. Can you say the same?

Are you saying I have been proven wrong? The assertion is not really backed up by anything, so I guess I could be totally wrong about the amount of remaining alarmist material.

Paraphrasing Popper, it is easy to find confirmations for any theory if you are looking for confirmations. So we will see plenty more global warming anecdotes in the coming years.

But the last proxy study to get big attention was Marcott 2013, no? And I'm sure you didn't read about it on CNN, but the meaning of the abstract had to be "clarified" on that one.

First of all, when you call it alarmist that's inherently reinforcing your bias that the concern for the climate is exaggerated. I find it difficult to believe that you could be evaluating them objectively with that sort of mindset.

Regarding Marcott 2013: are you saying that your scepticism is mainly for proxy studies, and there haven't been many recently?

What about that paper don't you trust? Have you read it yourself? (I'm reading it right now) Do you think it's intentionally underestimating the temperatures in the past to confirm that global warming is occurring?

The "alarmist" label is tongue-in-cheek, riffing off the corresponding "denier" rhetoric. Sorry for any confusion.

Marcott 2013 was cited in a lot of newspaper claims that the 20th century was "the warmest of the past 10,000 years" or something to that effect. It turns out they only kept a few proxies all the way through the 20th century to generate the uptick, removing the ones that did not contribute, and eventually had to concede that their study was not a reliable basis for any conclusions about the past century:

> Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.[0]

The claim they opted to make instead is that the temperature estimates from their proxy study can be compared with thermometer readings and that the thermometers indicate higher values in recent years, a much weaker conclusion for a proxy study.

Given the history of problems with every high-profile proxy study that comes along, and considering that they are the cornerstone of any logical reasoning connecting modern temperature data to measurable long-term climate-scale trends, I suggest that the conclusions about temperature anomalies (going back more than a few hundred years) are a lot less robust than many believe.

[0]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/respon...

We already tax economic externalites. A carbon tax is hardly "reorganizing society". If you want to stop doing that in general, then it's _you_ that wants to reorganize society according to your political beliefs.

Frankly, I'm sure you feel like you're winning a Bravery Contest (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates...) by posting this here, and I hate pile on, but this was blantant hyperbole.

So Guscost, when you net it all out, what do you think is the probability that continuing use of carbon fuels will cause a significant climate problem? 10%? 30%? 0.01%? 0?

I don't understand these arguments that global warming is "true" (100% likely) or "false" (0% likely). Because those probabilities are nonsensical.

Reasonable people might assign anywhere from 10% to 90% to that. Even if a person thinks it's 30% likely, that person might still find it prudent to take steps to avoid it. Or maybe not. But at least they have some thought process behind their viewpoint.

Everything depends on your definition of "significant" so I certainly can't just guess at a number. More significant than any other problem humanity is facing, perhaps?

If that is what you mean, my completely unscientific guess would be a decimal, then a whole lot of zeros, then a one. And I would not find it prudent to do anything to avoid that possibility that takes longer than five seconds. The steps usually recommended are much bigger than that.

Very few really big problems are ever settled in our lifetime, and yet we have to act (which can include deciding to not act) on imperfect information. We do our best. Get used to it.

Very good, please continue doing that. Arguing about and working on the issues you believe to be important can be a constructive thing no matter your perspective. Likewise I will continue to argue my perspective and work on those issues I believe to be important. Dismantling pernicious groupthink is one of them.

I just want to live in a clean, healthy, diverse and vibrant environment regardless of any climate science. It's unfortunate that your standards are so low when it comes to pollution, the mass extinction human activity creates and the general destruction of the planets ancient ecosystems but seeing as you don't really care it would be wise to get out of the way of the people who do.

I also consider a healthy environment to be a valuable resource, and our disagreement is entirely about the best way to ensure it remains that way.

Enlighten me please.

Some of the most important I can think of:

- Watch the documentary called "Pandora's Promise"

- Don't throw away aluminum or other metals if you can help it, and don't litter

- Support organizations and companies that are good members of society, at least as best as you can tell

- Encourage and persuade other people to care. Coercion is not going to work better in the long run because any scheme will eventually fall apart and at that time we will all be a lot better off if people have some kind of internal understanding of these values.

I can't fault anything you have said. I do feel there is an industrial level of operation that lives by and therefore needs different rules than the rest of us. The complexity of the situation and the systems, both man made and natural, that dictate the realities we all face with regard to environmental phenomena is very hard to hold in ones mind all at one time. I can imagine it's also a great challenge for scientists working in the field.

From what I can tell there has been no climate conspiracy. One thing that always helps me visualize what we are doing with our atmosphere is astronaut Gerry Carr's observation that if the earth were the size of an apple then the atmosphere would be as thick as the skin of the apple. We have a terribly fragile environment and everything should be done to conserve it. If we go 100% renewable there will still be untold amounts of damage caused to our eco-systems due to mining etc however it will be much easier to contain than the burning of fossil fuels which just spew out and spread around our minuscule atmosphere unchecked. Nuclear mining will also cause damage and while I am not against nuclear as an option it does bother me that we build nuclear stations in earthquake hotspots. This doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in me that we will make good decisions with something as potentially dangerous as nuclear in the future.

That is a peculiar reaction to this research.

I take it from your argument that

1) you reject the IPCC scientific concensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity and will lead to significant impacts in the next century and

2) you disagree with the introduction of regulatory frameworks to, for example, build the external costs of carbon emissions into the economy in the form of carbon taxation.

I also assume that you think you believe 2) BECAUSE you believe 1).

Faced with a research paper that suggests that often people adjust their opinion of research based on the palatability of proposed solutions, I find it interesting that you don't see this paper as evidence that you should go back and reconsider whether your rejection in 1) is, at least in part, driven by your distaste for the kind of solution proposed in 2).

What I don't see is any reason why this research gives you further confirmation for your position with respect to 1), which would therefore reinforce your commitment to 2).

Can you explain your logic a little more clearly?

OK, I'll try. I'm calling out what I see as an example of the "psychology journal ad-hominem" mentioned above, and perhaps having a little fun with the folks who are nodding along.

To clarify, the basic problem is that anyone talking about this story at face value will either a) presuppose that each problem is legitimate, or b) get accused of being affected by the psychology under discussion. The choice of global warming combined with the description of the effect as one of "aversion" and "denial" implies that people who don't agree with the mainstream argument are affected, while those who do agree are not. Notice how this release does not mention the equally valid conclusion that people who like a solution might be more inclined to believe that the problem it solves is real.

Being an unconventional environmentalist myself, I've seen this tactic several times before and am simply pointing out what it is: a retreat from the actual issue under consideration, and an attempt to re-frame the debate as one of psychology and the mental shortcomings of members of the opposition. Don't get me wrong, I can totally agree that some version of this phenomenon is real. In fact I've wondered many times over the years how much I might be personally affected by it. The general case is called "confirmation bias" and I'm not typically that optimistic about my own immunity to it, although I have made and will continue to make efforts to recognize and counter it. Thank you for your reminder and for being tactful and polite about it, but the idea is not news to me.

In summary, whether I may believe some version of 2) in part because I believe 1) or vice versa is an interesting question. However, immediately framing this particular research in this particular way amounts to (or will be used as) an elaborate and silly ad-hominem, nothing more. Anyone who uses it is grasping at very fine straws.

I've noticed that a common tendency on HN to avoid downvoted is to start your comment by saying something like 'time to spend some karma'. It seems surprisingly effective, I think because many on HN want to think they're contrarian so expressing that your opinion is contrarian is a way to garner support.

Or is it just that most comments don't get downvoted, especially well-written ones?

This almost certainly isn't true, it's far more likely you've only noticed it when it worked. Every other time, when it didn't, the comments were buried at the bottom of the article.

I'm pleasantly surprised (a lot depends on which people happen to click on the link), but was totally willing to spend 20 or so karma to say that.

> misanthropic environmentalist nonsense

You're confusing hating cancer cells with hating all cells. Not everybody takes and exploits and degrades everything as a matter of course. A bunch of people do, and a whole lot don't stand up to them. If we don't destroy our environment it's not because we cared or payed attention, but just because we're lucky, once again. This doesn't do for me. That's all. What other people of "my generation" think is not my concern either.

"The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it. "

The science of the shape of the earth isn't settled either. Nothing is ever really settled. But to "un-settle" a matter of science, you need actual evidence. Which the deniers do not have.

People who believe in anthropocentric climate change are misanthropes?

You should share your beliefs with the geoengineers running seeding programs creating algal blooms in the Pacific before they kill the whole fucking thing...

Well, that is what bothers me the most about this whole train wreck. If and when there are environmental issues more deserving of our attention than the CO2 thing, many anti-intellectuals are going end up dismissing them as politically motivated propaganda without even bothering to learn about them. Congratulations.

Be sure not to confuse condescension with intellectualism.

You missed the point of the paper, which isn't about climate change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com