USA Temperature: can I sucker you? • Hacker News Board

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#61

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #20

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, VW, decreased particulate emissions during testing in order to pass the testing and have the vehicles be higher powered (and more polluting) under normal use. They did it to sell cars and make profit; they weren't doing it to save the planet.

They did it to meet fuel economy numbers. CO2 emitted scales pretty much with fuel burned.

I may be misremembering, but AFAIR They artificially reduced diesel consumption figures by having the vehicles run different power curves during testing. Meaning they used more fuel, and made more particulate emissions than they claimed to. So they made it look like the cars would use less fuel than they actually did.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#62

Post by patrickg_zill » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

The first thing that jumps out at me, actually, is the use of a shorter time period than is likely available. From 1900 or 1920 to now is a pretty short time period.

We have (some) records dating back to the mid-1700s: https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/0...

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#63

Post by jtbayly » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

gok wrote: post #23

techsupporter wrote: post #18

> We can completely ignore the fact that over the years the average location of all the contributing stations has moved slightly northward to colder territory[.] Woah, that's not something I'd considered. Are weather stations that contribute to NOAA operated by the volunteer public, kind of like Weather Underground? Either way, that's pretty interesting that there's a distinct northward migration in at least one "dem…

That graph is...questionable. The entire Y axis only covers 55 kilometers. I’m sure the NOAA has more principled ways of accounting for station movement.

So the answer appear to be that, yes, he can sucker an awful lot of people.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#64

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

Ivoirians wrote: post #43

It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever).…

> This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue

Read it as an issue that unites middle American industrialists and rural anti-elitists and the politics make sense.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#65

Post by mirimir » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

First, most of the credentialed ones are funded by fossil fuels industries. Either directly or via shells to obscure sources. And so their objectivity is at least questionable.

Second, there's support from public relations firms, also clearly funded by fossil fuels industries. It grew out of the "smokers rights" campaign in the early 80s, which was funded by the tobacco industry. And indeed, the "climate-change denial" campaign is basically a clone of that. Involving the same firms, but with much broader funding.

So basically, virtually none of the climate-change deniers have a clue about the underlying science. So "intellectually engaging" with them is pointless. You could maybe help them see how they've been manipulated. But that too is probably pointless, because they're up to their noses in a smothering meme swamp.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#66

Post by freedomben » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

gt_ wrote: post #59

freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

Does “* denier” really count as vitriol? I don’t personally use this language, but for what I think is a different reason: if removing a noun-forming suffix yields a verb which defines the extent of a category, I just think this results in an extraneous lack of specificity (you could instead just describe the subject as performing the action). I also think it’s collectively beneficial to not go out of our way to cate…

> Does “* denier” really count as vitriol?

Great question. I agree with your logic, and that on its face it isn't vitriolic, or even really offensive (or shouldn't be at least). However I've only ever really seen the term used by people that are using it as a pejorative. For that reason I take more of a structuralist view on the meaning, which is subjective.

I've never heard somebody (excluding trolls) describe themselves as a "climate denier" either.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#67

Post by briandear » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

Ivoirians wrote: post #43

It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever).…

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e...

Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at all, we get labeled “deniers” or otherwise ostracized. That’s pretty unique in science, usually skepticism is considered a healthy part of the scientific process — unless it’s concerning a topic that has substantial political implications.

Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate. Another time we had “settled science” with so much politicization was when Eugenics was being advocated.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-da...

I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#68

Post by dagss » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

splintercell wrote: post #30

bjourne wrote: post #22

We really need to do something now! The summer has been un-fucking-believably hot. Climate change is not something that will happen in the "future" -- we have to avoid a global ecosystem collapse in the next 10-15 years. :(

I know the Pascal's wager argument for action on Climate change (which is that if there is even 1% chance of climate change being real then why not act on it since the downside of acting is nothing ), but the question is, what if climate change is NOT man-made? If there is even 1% chance that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon then all our efforts to 'stop' greenhouse gas emissions is not going to giv…

Argument against is simple: Mitigating effects climate change as you suggest will be extremely expensive. (Protecting cities from rising sea levels is really the least of problems...)

If we can do something much cheaper (prevent climate change) and there is a 99% chance of it working then of course you should; probibalistically...

Yet despite what the math says, the path the world is on is obviously to do nothing. The efforts done now to stop man-made global warming is a rounding error.... The Paris agreement is short of what is needed, and no country is close to fullfilling the Paris agreement.

So our children have to pay for the enormously more expensive mitigation instead.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#69

Post by leppr » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #42

IlGrigiore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?

That's a decent point. I do find it unfortunate that the term has become polarized because it is a convenient and descriptive categorical term. I don't have any better solutions, other than maybe something more specific that tries to understand the position of the person rather than sticking them in a large group identity with which they likely don't conform to entirely. I generally like to ask people how they identi…

You could say the same thing about the term "conspiracy theorist". It's just more convenient to label opposing voices with a single, derogatory connotated, term. Especially when the aforementioned group is comprised of many genuinely stupid/malicious individuals.

Now the problem with those groups is that their borders are made intentionally blurred. In the case of climate change: industrial/government lobbyists and shills try to mingle with genuinely skeptical citizens. Grouping all these people in a single group is one of the only ways to fight against that, especially when the raw information dissemination power of the opposing party is so much stronger.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#70

Post by 78h321sadfh7z » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

saudioger wrote: post #57

freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…

Appeal to authority is not a legitimate argument in a discussion.

Neither is reducing one side of the debate to climate change being a "hoax".

The general debate in the scientific community resolves around the question as to what extent humans are involved, and this debate is still alive even if the majority wants it to be suppressed.

The fact that the majority of scientists behaves irrational and pushes inadequate models into politics doesn't make their arguments any better.