Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by viggity 4053 days ago
GMOs, nuclear power, space travel, health care... all things that you can create testable hypothesis for. Climate "Science" can create computer models, not real tests and they're always wrong (none predicted the last 15 year hiatus in temp). It is always the same person collecting and analyzing the data. Nobody releases the code to their models. There are millions of variables in the climate, and we can't isolate and test a single one because of the scale of the earth, let alone all of them like we can with nuclear reactions. And yet, we're going to halt economic development that benefits real people, right now? If you asked the average New Yorker in 1900 what they'd worry about if there were 20 million people living in New York City, they'd ask you how the city could possibly dispose of all the horse shit from 15 million horses. We can leverage fossil fuels to lift billions of people out of poverty or we can worry about all of the horse shit on the streets.
1 comments

And yet, we're going to halt economic development that benefits real people, right now?

I've heard a few people argue that growth is the problem, but they're fringe economic thinkers. Most green types I know want to see dirty ofssil fuels displaced by a cleaner more effective solution that will support continued growth, The more serious ones see nuclear as part of the toolset for that.

Your argument about the deficiencies of models involves a number of unsupportable assumptions, particularly the assertion that because the climate is so big and complex that it's impossible to validate any part of our model. On the contrary, we're able to do very rigorous measurements in multiple dimensions on things like glaciers and polar ice density. I don't think you'd take me seriously if you said cosmology was a fundamentally doomed enterprise because the universe is so big. If we are willing to invest in space science to further the aim of travel and seeking life on other planets in the solar system (which aims the science committee does favor), then it's not unreasonable to think we can do at least a good a job of studying our own planet as exploring travel to others (an aim I also support).