

One of the World's Foremost Meteorologists Has Called the Theory That Helped Al Gore Share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" - gibsonf1
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

======
Tichy
In Europe there is a region called "Karst" (in German anyway), that used to be
full of florishing green woods. Now it is a sort of desert, and "Karst" is a
synonym for an unfriendly, dry and barren landscape.

How did it get like that? Romans felled all the trees for ship building, many
centuries ago.

I know this does not relate directly to the CO2 discussion (which also seems a
bit simplistic to me), but driving through that landscape as a kid left a deep
impression on me. Surely if the ancient Romans could change the environment,
humans can affect the environment in the 21st century. It would be ridiculous
to ascertain that humans have no effect on the environment at all, even if we
don't understand the precise chain of effects.

~~~
testapplication
Well if we are talking about CO2 then you would see the opposite of Karst: CO2
stimulates plant growth tremendously.

------
patrickg-zill
I am really and truly surprised at the debate on global warming.

Surely even a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to how difficult it would be
to do an accurate mathematical model of climate, and the computing power
needed to run such a simulation, would show that any prediction based on a
computer model at this point is essentially bogus; much less being able to
determine whether or not it is caused by man or by natural causes.

When you add in the fact that an accurate model of "how oceans work" is
decades away (we don't even understand the Gulf Stream at this point) you have
to wonder, exactly how can you mathematically model something that you don't
understand?

~~~
Tichy
It seesm unlikely that human civilization has no effect whatsoever, though.
Just because we can't calculate something precisely doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. There are more phenomena we can't simulate correctly than there are
phenomena we can simulate. I guess we can't simulate the weather, either, yet
nobody is going around claiming that "hurricanes don't exist".

~~~
JulianMorrison
When a process has homeostatic feedback, it can absorb some change with no
result.

Also, when a process has a maximum (in the case of CO2, total opacity in its
spectral window), then going beyond the maximum has no further effect.

~~~
Tichy
I wouldn't say my last prayers just yet, either - definitely there are a lot
of complex mechanisms at work, and some of them might help to balance the
ecosystem. On the other hand there have always been huge climatic changes in
the history of earth, so we can't just count on everything staying the same it
always was. It didn't work for the dinosaurs, that much is certain. There is
no benevolent force that sees to keeping conditions just right for human
survival.

As for CO2, I also don't know why suddenly all attention is focussed on that.
It seems to be just one part of the problem/puzzle.

------
davidw
My high school physics teacher had this to say: "as a scientist, with such
complex systems, it's really hard to be _certain_ about anything with the
evidence we have, however, this is the only planet we have, and I'd prefer not
to risk it".

~~~
benl
With all due respect, I suggest ignoring that teacher.

This is the 'precautionary principle' which, while it sounds all nice and
sensible on first hearing, is actually a recipe for justifying all kinds of
mindless nonsense.

"Vaccines might cause Autism -- best not immunise my kids against that killer
disease measles."

"WiFi might cause cancer -- best not put wireless networks in schools"

"Industrialiation might cause global warming -- best not let poor countries
build power plants"

~~~
davidw
You are playing a bit of a game by equating something where there are some
definite indications in one direction and a lot of unknowns (global warming),
with things where there is little real evidence and a much more well
understood system (vaccines). And sometimes, it makes sense to be cautious.
Smoking did, and does cause cancer and other health problems.

There is pretty good evidence that the climate is changing (glaciers, icecaps)
- that much is obvious even for those who don't want it to be true, at this
point. The open question is whether it's us that's doing it. Given that we
don't know, and we risk serious consequences, a bit of precaution doesn't seem
so out of place.

There are sensible ways to start working against global warming without
wrecking the world economy - (republican economist) Greg Mankiw's "Pigou
Club", for instance:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club>

That's the sort of sensible, cautious approach that makes sense to me: heed
the warning, start doing something, and keep studying, without losing your
head and doing anything truly rash that would trash the economy, or go
overboard the other way and simply ignore/downplay the whole thing because it
doesn't fit into your view of politics.

Also, as something of an aside, I have a lot of respect for that teacher - he
was/is a bright guy not at all given to doom and gloom or handwaving - he was
one of those teachers who could have had a good job in industry, no problem,
but really loved teaching. His statement (which I only remember the gist of at
this point) summed up both a sense of professional responsibility in admitting
that there are a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and of a
cautious, responsible approach to things that are potentially serious and
dangerous. That's why I still remember it after 15+ years.

------
brlewis
I don't know how this article got so many upvotes. It's mainly name-calling.
In the one place where it actually says something, mentioning this ocean salt
cycle idea, there are no citations or other substance to back it up.

------
DaniFong
Gray is a longtime 'climate change' denier. I'm not sure if he is in the back
pocket of the oil industry, but probably. Here's an article on real climate
written back in April 2006. It should at least raise your eyebrows.

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-o...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-
on-agw/)

~~~
1gor
You are using emotionally loaded labels ( _'climate change' denier_ ) and
attack integrity of the opponent ( _back pocket of the oil industry_ ).

These are tools of a demagogue. You cannot be taken seriously after that.

~~~
DaniFong
So, 'ad hominem' attacks are not allowed, and therefore nobody should ever
take me seriously? That's a pretty amusing argument, I must say.

You're quite right they're emotionally loaded labels. We only get one earth,
you know. I actually care about it. So should you.

But in case you think that the possibility for scientific payola is above
scrutiny, fine. I also included a link which discussed his actual claims, and
the actual science and debate around them. Read it.

~~~
anamax
> So, 'ad hominem' attacks are not allowed, and therefore nobody should ever
> take me seriously? That's a pretty amusing argument,

It's a pretty reliable argument. When someone concedes that they don't have a
rational argument, they're usually correct.

They may still be correct, but are useless for determining that.

------
asmosoinio
I have long thought that humans have no effect on global warming, and that the
climate change we are seeing would have happened regardless of what we do. For
me, this doesn't change much -- I still try to do things the "greenest" way
practically possible and think that it is important to reduce your ecological
footprint.

However I have only recently realized that this "reduce CO2 or the earth will
boil"-publicity is actually really good, even if not scientifically accurate.
It makes people think, and it makes people change the way they behave, to
reduce pollution.

Therefore I am kind of worried if the public opinion changes into "we did not
cause global warming, no worries", as that might kill this new thrive for
ecological behavior.

Maybe I should have more trust in my fellow people. Probably not...

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Unfortunately it's also an excuse for massive government intervention in all
kinds of systems. Still, I agree that the whole affair drives innovation in
energy production which is a good thing for many reasons.

------
MuddyMo
One of the World's Foremost Metaphysicist's has said if you close your eyes
and wish something wasn't true long enough, it won't be.

~~~
axod
Yeah we're all sinners. Seriously - 'man made global warming' is turning into
a cult.

It's a very scary movement that is trying to restrict what 3rd world countries
can do.

Kinda reminds me of the 'year 2000 bug'... "Oh no the worlds computers will
blow up!!! You better all spend loads of money on fixing it" "Oh.... nothing
much happened... well thank god we spent all that money 'fixing' it."

~~~
MuddyMo
One of the World's Foremost Chiropractors says germs do not cause disease.

~~~
axod
If you have some intelligent argument to make, go ahead. However, it doesn't
look like you do.

At the moment you look like the person with his fingers in his ears spouting
out endless "If X then Y", that you seem to think somehow 'proves your point'.

Did you read the article? Read any other scientific articles on the subject?
Or are you just a 'believer'

~~~
MuddyMo
I've done both. Are you or gibsonf1 familiar with the mechanics of political
oppo tactics? This is a hit piece and not a very subtle one either. The title
says it all. It is designed to be the jumping off point for right-wing
attackers.

Am I a believer? Yes, In science! Link to a science based article questioning
the conventional wisdom of climate change? Fine. Great. All for it. Bring it
on. Let's debate. But lazily link to a piece of sensationalized right-wing
propaganda when this feed should be primarily about news related to the world
of computers and computer science and I feel the best response is parody.

If gibsonf1 hates Al Gore and buys into the perverted slander built up by his
political opponents and the Washington Beltway establishment, thats fine too.
But he shouldn't bring it on to the Hacker News feed, unless he WANTS Hacker
News to head down a road that leads to a site burned a nice crispy shade of
brown by battalions of political talking point agenda bots.

------
MuddyMo
One of the World's Foremost Researchers Has Called the Apollo Moon Landings a
Hoax!

------
tokipin
the notion that humans could affect earth this much is laughable. we could
smother the surface with nuclear explosions and the world would repair itself
as an organism, never mind something as negligible as human CO2 emissions

~~~
bct
Sure, Earth would recover. It would be pretty bad for humanity in general, and
you and I in specific, though.

~~~
tokipin
yea, that's in the nuclear case. in the relevant case of human CO2 emissions,
nothing is likely to happen. earth is an immensely stable self-repairing
system

~~~
bct
Again, nobody's claiming that the planet is going to have trouble with global
warming. We humans have invested a lot into current climate patterns though,
and the transition will be unpleasant.

~~~
tokipin
i'm saying there won't be any transition caused by us

i do like the benefits of seeking efficiency. the sorts of technology that
will arise when efficiency is economically supported (for example, by
artificial markets a la kyoto or california's propositions) ie by necessity,
should be impressive. for that reason i like the global warming movement and
hope it continues so long as it has as a corollary a drive for efficiency

------
MuddyMo
One of the Worlds' Foremost Nutritionist says there are Natural Cures They
Don't Want You To Know About

------
MuddyMo
One of the World's Foremost Dermatologist's has said that any skin problem can
be solved with Gold Bond medicated powder.

------
MuddyMo
One of the World's Foremost Webmasters says "WTF" to the changes made to
Hacker News

<http://www.centernetworks.com/y-combinator-hacker-news>

Allen Stern, webmaster for CernerNetworks states, "Considering that Y
Combinator is all about the startup, this makes no sense. They have a couple
other updates to the app as well. First, they will be looking for trolls on
the comments for each post which is a good move."

Stern had nothing to say about how the system will handle ill advised postings
of blatant political oppo hit pieces by Hacker News leaders.

------
MuddyMo
One of the World's foremost mechanical engineers says that automakers could
build a carburetor that would let cars get 100 miles to a gallon, but the Oil
companies won't let them!

