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

61–65 of 65 posts

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

#61

Post by DrScump »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #34
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…

> HN leans fairly heavily liberal and extremely heavily scientific the rest of the time. HN also has a strong libertarian bias. There's some correlation between subscribing to that type of dogma and being an active climate change denier.

  HN also has a strong libertarian bias.
Having a sizable libertarian presence is not the same as having a "strong libertarian bias".

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

#62

Post by hnhg »

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…

I guess more than just saying "this is bunkum" - I'm talking about examining the evidence and analytical techniques on both sides and engaging in debate rather than shutting the other side down, etc. Just citing stuff is a superficial level of debate, but for non-experts like us maybe that's all we can muster. In that case, we have to acknowledge that.

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

#63

Post by woodandsteel »

abduhl wrote: post #36
rndmize wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Accusations of astroturfing or shilling without evidence are not allowed on HN. Rushing to that as an explanation is, invariably, evidence of sloppy thinking—or maybe non-thinking, of the kind that political passion leads us all to." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13345070

But in this case evidence was presented that the person is a shill, and in addition there were fact-based arguments against the position advocated by the alleged shill. Seems what you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves against shills by any means.

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

#64

Post by splawn »

splawn wrote: post #41
FrancoDiaz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am what you would call a "denier". By the way, when you people use that term, it makes you sound very cultish, especially the calls from leftists for the death penalty for deniers. I actually don't "deny" that there could be anthropogenic climate change, but until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs (economic, freedom), and also when the left stops "denying" that it fits conveniently into their ide…

You want honesty? Scientific discovery doesn't care about economic models. The chemical properties of CO2 are not affected by politics. You don't get to vote on thermodynamics. There is no debate regarding the existence of AGW, except outside of science. What is this leftist ideological economic model you speak of?

right... nothing valid to say...

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

#65

Post by Florin_Andrei »

DrScump wrote: post #61
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN leans fairly heavily liberal and extremely heavily scientific the rest of the time. HN also has a strong libertarian bias. There's some correlation between subscribing to that type of dogma and being an active climate change denier.

HN also has a strong libertarian bias. Having a sizable libertarian presence is not the same as having a "strong libertarian bias ".

You're right. I stand corrected. Thank you.
Post reply on HN