11–20 of 65 posts
As usual, mindless assertions that we're all going to die of climate change get plugged; the contrary view gets down-voted because it's not the current orthodoxy. Beautifully stalinist: we have always been at war with EastAsia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
s/it's not the current orthodoxy/it's not the opinion of the vast majority of people who know what they are talking about and have studied it/
Sure the vast majority of people know what they are talking about. They get their opinions from journalists and rent-seekers.
As usual, mindless assertions that we're all going to die of climate change get plugged; the contrary view gets down-voted because it's not the current orthodoxy. Beautifully stalinist: we have always been at war with EastAsia.
Is the HN population actually like that, or are these people trying to push an agenda and otherwise not participating in the site? Either way, I sure wish we could discuss these things instead of getting bogged down in "it's all nonsense" every time.
>combination of climatic factors and unusual weather. > Summer 2015 was unusually hot and dry relative to the last 20 years So data over last 20 yrs is enough to conclude "changing climate" ? > Middle East becomes more arid in the long term due to climate change This article[1] blames it on ' farmers who pump water from limited underground aquifers '. Is there any proof that middle east is becoming more arid and it d…
1. They might be wrong.
2. If they are wrong it almost certainly isn't for the reason I think they might be wrong.
3. 2) is especially true if the reason I think they might be wrong came to me within 5 minutes of thinking about the issue.
4. My first glance thought about the paper being wrong most likely is itself wrong.
Instead of concluding that the reporter writing
" Summer 2015 was unusually hot and dry relative to the last 20 years"
means this is the sole reason for the conclusion of the scientists it's better to wonder what all the factor are that led them to their conclusion. What is it that they know that I don't know that makes them believe this conclusion? That's the right starting point for investigation and understanding.
Interesting how all the climate change deniers come out of the woodwork whenever stories like these are posted, even though HN leans fairly heavily liberal and extremely heavily scientific the rest of the time. Is the HN population actually like that, or are these people trying to push an agenda and otherwise not participating in the site? Either way, I sure wish we could discuss these things instead of getting bogge…
I've seen both cases. Even people with completely reasonable histories.
Interesting how all the climate change deniers come out of the woodwork whenever stories like these are posted, even though HN leans fairly heavily liberal and extremely heavily scientific the rest of the time. Is the HN population actually like that, or are these people trying to push an agenda and otherwise not participating in the site? Either way, I sure wish we could discuss these things instead of getting bogge…
How would you "discuss these things" without having different points of view? Should we all just post 'this climate change is even worse than I thought', then respond 'I knew it was this bad, see my post from 2 years ago'?
Interesting how all the climate change deniers come out of the woodwork whenever stories like these are posted, even though HN leans fairly heavily liberal and extremely heavily scientific the rest of the time. Is the HN population actually like that, or are these people trying to push an agenda and otherwise not participating in the site? Either way, I sure wish we could discuss these things instead of getting bogge…
Most topics on HN have people staunchly defending different camps; this is just an obvious one. As an example, Signal is very controversial, so there are a few people who say it's great for privacy, and another group that say it's misleading and less secure than it appears. Full disclosure: I don't have a position on Signal, but I'm a big fan of Moxie. How would you "discuss these things" without having different poi…
Instead, we just get these condescending posts completely dismissing any notion of climate change at all.
I do not see this phenomenon with other fact-based topics discussed here. When there's a story about vaccine, we're not flooded with people telling us how vaccines are full of toxins and don't prevent disease. When there's a story about genetics, we're not flooded with people telling us that evolution is a hoax. Physics stories don't get flooded with comments pushing Time Cube or whatever. Yes, we do get some comments like that, but not many.
Sure, something like Signal is controversial, but that's something that's naturally based on opinion. Dissent about the tradeoffs of something like Signal is quite different from dissent about the reality of climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most topics on HN have people staunchly defending different camps; this is just an obvious one. As an example, Signal is very controversial, so there are a few people who say it's great for privacy, and another group that say it's misleading and less secure than it appears. Full disclosure: I don't have a position on Signal, but I'm a big fan of Moxie. How would you "discuss these things" without having different poi…
There are plenty of things to discuss within the broad camp of "accepts that climate change is real and a potential problem." For example, the severity, the cause of individual events, the best responses, the potential dangers in the future, etc. Instead, we just get these condescending posts completely dismissing any notion of climate change at all. I do not see this phenomenon with other fact-based topics discussed…
If you have some non-viewpoint-based standard for what is a legitimate topic of debate, I would be happy to see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of things to discuss within the broad camp of "accepts that climate change is real and a potential problem." For example, the severity, the cause of individual events, the best responses, the potential dangers in the future, etc. Instead, we just get these condescending posts completely dismissing any notion of climate change at all. I do not see this phenomenon with other fact-based topics discussed…
So if I just say that whatever I believe is the 'reality of _", the conversation should switch to the potential ramifications of the ideas I believe? It seems like you are just saying that we should discuss the issues you (or some arbitrarily selected group of your choice) believe to be contentious issues. If you have some non-viewpoint-based standard for what is a legitimate topic of debate, I would be happy to see…