Comment by whydoyoucare | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whydoyoucare | Hacker News Reader

To me science is never settled, and anyone who claims climate crisis is pretty much definite has an incentive that has other hidden angles than we are led to believe. This is not a denial position, but is largely characterised so. Nothing in science is black-and-white, there are infinite shades of gray in between.

Having said that, Freeman Dyson also seems to share this opinion, and I think it carries some weight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs. Another article also says the same: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-clim...

The later link also highlights an important aspect from IPCC's report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2.)]"

Whatever I know about modeling and Lorenz's theories, I do think long-term climate predication is impossible given our current models. Is that denial? Certainly not, and I am open to change my mind as models become more accurate and more data is avaiable.

Till then I would not want my wallet to be lighter in the name of carbon taxes, please.

Unfortunately, making policy isn't a matter of epistemology. If we prevented ourselves from making any kind of decisions due to uncertainty about our empirical claims, we would be stuck in a kind of ethical paralysis that would prevent any kind of coordinated policy.

To argue that inherent complexity means we should remain in a state of inaction is in itself a form of denialism. The fact that it is difficult to make predictions about chaotic systems does not mean that the null hypothesis is automatically true.

I don't know any example where a legislation (especially which levied tax) was rolled back because the argument no longer held true. And hence my skepticism of "carbon taxes".

Additionally, I do not see anyone arguing a moderate position on legislation, which logically follows, considering the data may be wrong. Action based on potentially incorrect data is as big a problem as much as the null hypothesis you define. I am hard pressed to see a legislation that talks about reducing materialistic consumption, or living frugal, but we are very interested in increasing taxes. No?

This is an almost perfectly textbook example of how to sew FUD to muddle a debate. Fortunately we seem to have turned a cultural corner in the last few months, so you're getting heavily downvoted, but even just a year ago this would have worked.

You have a response to what Dyson argues? No, so you instead cast a doubt on the entire argument - classic FUD.

Culture is not just influenced by scientific thought rather a lot of narrative based on emotion. Think how we are fighting LGBTQ+ and gender wars, when poverty is nowhere on any agenda!

BTW, I do not respond with position convenient for upvotes (a mentality I largely notice in the HN crowd), and it does not matter to me if the thread gets votes or not. I actually think these votes create perverse incentives that stiffle debate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com