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

Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

sciencebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#21

Post by nickff »

hnhg wrote: post #20
nickff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."

What type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory?

Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1]

My basic issue is that it seems mikeash is trying to impose their arbitrary standard on others.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#22

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

nickff wrote: post #21
hnhg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."

What type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory? Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1] My basic issue i…

Ultimately it doesn't matter because equating opinions to actions is like debating the difference between a recipe and a steaming plate of risotto.

If you want to help prevent climate change, put up solar panels, get an electric car and hook it up to a renewable grid, eat less meat, fly less, whatever, just do something, because arguing with strangers over the Internet changes nothing at all.

My comment has no effect on climate change either.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#23

Post by diogenescynic »

mikeash wrote: post #14

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…

Big Oil companies fund climate skeptics and hire public affairs companies who pay people to promote those views online. It may or not be happening here, but it's definitely a thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...

and: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-...

and: https://thinkprogress.org/denier-bots-live-why-are-online-co...

and: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2485252/social-media/ar...

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#24

Post by mikeash »

nickff wrote: post #19
mikeash wrote: post #18

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…

I'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics.

The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is, well, that's a problem.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#25

Post by climatedenier »

Common sense says the same thing that caused the dust bowl in the USA (changes, as noted in the article, to the land use, abandoned agriculture, etc.) caused this dust storm.

Then a team of comes along to set the record straight with their conspiracy theories about knowing everything, etc.

People come by to see what's all the fuss about... labeled as "deniers", a term used to associate people that disagree with anthropogenic climate change conspiracy theories in with holocaust deniers.

If you think there is another valid reason to use the word "deniers" when referring to people questioning climate change conspiracy theories, then you probably haven't heard of burden of proof.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#26

Post by nickff »

mikeash wrote: post #24
nickff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics. The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is,…

I look around HN and see that the same people who believe a majority of climate scientists do not believe a majority of economists. Do they then parse it down to 'labor economists', or just look at surveys of all economists? Should you trust anonymous surveys, or those of non-prestigious researchers, or those conducted by organizations with an interest in the result?

It seems to me that all of these decisions are arbitrary, and often practiced inconsistently.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#27

Post by mikeash »

nickff wrote: post #26
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics. The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is,…

I look around HN and see that the same people who believe a majority of climate scientists do not believe a majority of economists. Do they then parse it down to 'labor economists', or just look at surveys of all economists? Should you trust anonymous surveys, or those of non-prestigious researchers, or those conducted by organizations with an interest in the result? It seems to me that all of these decisions are arb…

I'd say there's a major difference in that believing a majority of economists is usually mathematically impossible, since there's almost never consensus on anything in that field.

Edit: as proof, I will soon have at least two replies telling me that I'm wrong and that all proper economists agree on idea X, where each comment's X is incompatible with the other's.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#28

Post by jbattle »

mikeash wrote: post #14

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…

Honestly I think HN draws a crowd that leans contrarian by nature. A lot of people here like a good argument and like to feel they've arrived at conclusions on their own brainpower, no matter how popular or unpopular. (There's a tempting trap that holding an unpopular opinion is validation you are thinking for yourself)

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#29

Post by rndmize »

mikeash wrote: post #14

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…

In the case of this particular article, it looks like most of the denial posts are a single account (sameoldsameold, 2 hours old currently). Since all the posts by that account are now marked flagged/dead, and the account climatedenier is less than ten minutes old and is already posting along the same lines, I'd guess its the same person.

Unless this person is tremendously emotionally involved in the idea of climate change, I don't see why an average HN reader would spend this much time on a single thread or create new accounts to post.

It leaves me feeling like this is the efforts of a publicity firm or something similar - I remember reading some years back (well before the recent drama) about Russian government-run media control orgs that hired people to post comments to promote their view or damage opposing ones with bad arguments. Years before that, there was similar material from SF-based firms doing manipulation on reddit and digg. No reason to assume this no longer exists imo.

Re: Giant Middle East dust storm caused by a changing climate, not human conflict

#30

Post by nickff »

mikeash wrote: post #27
nickff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look around HN and see that the same people who believe a majority of climate scientists do not believe a majority of economists. Do they then parse it down to 'labor economists', or just look at surveys of all economists? Should you trust anonymous surveys, or those of non-prestigious researchers, or those conducted by organizations with an interest in the result? It seems to me that all of these decisions are arb…

I'd say there's a major difference in that believing a majority of economists is usually mathematically impossible, since there's almost never consensus on anything in that field. Edit: as proof, I will soon have at least two replies telling me that I'm wrong and that all proper economists agree on idea X, where each comment's X is incompatible with the other's.

Seems like there is a consensus among economists who do research on gun violence, and they agree that guns make people safer.[1] I am certain that you have now been persuaded by this evidence, and believe concealed carry should be permitted worldwide...

Or maybe you dismissed the result because you dislike the conclusions and conveniently believe John Lott is untrustworthy?

I picked this example because I suspect it's an issue you will be extremely reluctant to change your mind on.

[1] http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-o...

Post reply on HN