Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

timesonline.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#21

Post by [deleted] »

TheBranca18 wrote: post #13
TheBranca18 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verbal purity? They are two totally different concepts. This isn't about making sure you use the right term, it's making sure you understand the difference between the two. And yes it was clear. I think anyone reading the article should come to that conclusion. Your comparison was shallow and silly and I called you on it.

I always thought that global warming was a subset of climate change. The fact that the title of the article included climate change made me puzzled as to why global warming was used.

[deleted]

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#22

Post by TheBranca18 »

kunley wrote: post #19
TheBranca18 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that global warming was a subset of climate change. The fact that the title of the article included climate change made me puzzled as to why global warming was used.

Because I'm commenting article content, not the title. Of course the global warming is the subset of a climate change -- the subset most relevant in the article.

And like I said before, your comment was poor. You said it was the new swine flu when it's been around far longer. It was disingenuous and apparently calling you on it is a no no; so be it.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#23

Post by xenonite »

Global warming != Climate change

1.) Global warming increases average temperatures.

2.) Climate change might turn the weather to extremes, which implies greater temperature _variance_ locally.

Now the pattern I see is: people are trying to focus on 1.), disprove it, then (falsly) claim that 2.) would also be wrong!

This is not the case. 1.) does NOT relate to 2.) in any way!

The climate change IS happening, this does not change by disproving 1.)

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#24

Post by ugh »

ErrantX wrote: post #18
ugh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me about the difference. As far as I know climate change is the more general term while global warming can be used to refer to the current climate change. Both terms are equally valid, even if global warming might fall a bit short in describing all the effects of climate change. (It will get warmer, but there will likely be other effects that are often less well understood.) There is hardly any harm done…

> There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. The only caveat is that Global Warming has been intrinsically linked to the word "Man Made" by various people. Rightly or wrongly the phrase has a much more specific connotation than just a subset of climate change.

Sure it has been. At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. That's just how it is and that's the reason why the term global warming currently usually implies man made.

You will not change that by complaining about definitions and how words are used. In the 19th century light implied aether. No change of the dictionary could change that, there had actual scientific work to be done to change that.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#26

Post by ErrantX »

ugh wrote: post #24
ErrantX wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. The only caveat is that Global Warming has been intrinsically linked to the word "Man Made" by various people. Rightly or wrongly the phrase has a much more specific connotation than just a subset of climate change.

Sure it has been. At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. That's just how it is and that's the reason why the term global warming currently usually implies man made. You will not change that by complaining about definitions and how words are used. In the 19th century light implied aether. No change of the dictionary could change that, there had actual scientific work t…

> At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made.

This is the part of the issue under debate...

However: the world appears to be warming up - that is why the phrase global warming was used. There was no man made connotation either way when it was first used. The linking has been made for various reasons.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#27

Post by kunley »

akira_x wrote: post #20
akira_x wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's clear that this tampering should not be fodder for a flippant response about being the "new swine flu". If we can't trust scientist to do their job without "fudging" the numbers, then who are we to trust? I want my tax money going to more research, but now I am not so sure and thats the real tragedy.

Now, its clear what you were getting at with the reference to the swine flu. As far as carbon tax, its good and bad. Good that it will supposedly encourage competitiveness. Bad that most companies will just move to a state or country that doesn't have the tax.

I'm afraid that in some parts of the world it will encourage corruption instead.

It can also hurt developing countries where better energy sources are not available or insanely expensive. I specifically mean eastern part of the EU where carbon tax is likely to be forced.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#28

Post by anamax »

mseebach wrote: post #9
ErrantX wrote: post #2

The only conclusion that I 've been able to draw from this mess is: climate science has been seriously compromised :( I just cant decide who can be trusted as a source for accurate and unbiased information/opinion.

Which is a conclusion with some pretty far-reaching consequences. Most environmental legislation in industrialized countries for the past decade, if not two, might have been based on flawed science. Considering the egos of the people who would need to go out and say "when the facts change, I change my mind" to clean up this mess, it could take decades. We're hearing a lot about market failure these years, how's this…

> We're hearing a lot about market failure these years, how's this for government failure?

Govt failure isn't new.

Govt is systemic risk.

When US car companies decided that they didn't want to make the kind of vehicles that I wanted, Toyota was willing to do so.

When the US govt decides to do something dumb, I'm expected to pay for it. And when I point out that it's doing dumb things, I get yelled at by folks who think that I have some obligation to fix the govt that they broke.

Screw that.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#29

Post by kunley »

TheBranca18 wrote: post #22
kunley wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I'm commenting article content, not the title. Of course the global warming is the subset of a climate change -- the subset most relevant in the article.

And like I said before, your comment was poor. You said it was the new swine flu when it's been around far longer. It was disingenuous and apparently calling you on it is a no no; so be it.

Yeah I bet you would say it's poor also if I said it differently, "global warming is overhyped" or whatever, probably because you just don't agree with it.

Speaking of poorness of comments, I guess in this matter you can rely on how they are upvoted. No offense, just see for yourself..

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#30

Post by ugh »

ErrantX wrote: post #26
ugh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it has been. At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. That's just how it is and that's the reason why the term global warming currently usually implies man made. You will not change that by complaining about definitions and how words are used. In the 19th century light implied aether. No change of the dictionary could change that, there had actual scientific work t…

> At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. This is the part of the issue under debate... However: the world appears to be warming up - that is why the phrase global warming was used. There was no man made connotation either way when it was first used. The linking has been made for various reasons.

Aw, now that sounds so devilish. I don't think so. I would guess that most climate scientists were just fed up with saying "global warming that is caused by humans ..." and shortened that to "global warming". No big deal, and happens all the time. Scientists that don't think so must now say "global warming that is not caused by humans ...", but if they are convincing they surely will be able to shorten their version :)

That's not a problem and not a central issue.

Post reply on HN