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

USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

tamino.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#91

Post by yongjik »

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…

If there's 1% chance that we're all mistaken how climate works, why would building levies would be a solution to anything? It means we literally have no idea what will happen, and there's no way to know if the levies will be high enough or if it will be needed at all. You will be wasting a trillion dollars in the off chance that (1) we don't understand climate and yet (2) the climate happens to do exactly the thing you prepared yourself for.

Meanwhile, cutting back on fossil fuel gives us real, measurable benefit in the 99% of cases, and won't even hurt us that much in the remaining 1%. Unless you think "The Earth's wind just stopped." is a possibility.

(The number is probably more like 99.9999 vs 0.0001%.)

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#93

Post by guelo »

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…

How can you read a post about denier's deliberate bad faith manipulation and then complain that they're the ones being treated unfairly. Almost makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#95

Post by 78h321sadfh7z »

luckydata wrote: post #38
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…

Because their stupidity is going to kill us all. I'm very vitriolic against people that are trying to kill me and my family, I can't help it.

Your slightly aggressive stance is not very helpful, but as someone who does not agree with the IPCC fear mongering, I regularly have to deal with this behavior when I talk with people about my views regarding our planet's climate.

Over-confidence is by the way not necessarily a trait associated with intelligence, and being in doubt and sceptical (about politically motivated consensus) is one of the hallmarks of science.

You have to accept that people who think differently about certain topics also do not agree with your conclusions, i.e. that you are being killed due to man-made climate change.

A similar argument can be made from the opposite side: That running with the herd and appealing to authority is a fundamental enemy of science and the prerequisite for succumbing into a dark age. So I could ask: Why are people pushing irrational climate fears trying to kill me and my family?

But I won't do that, because I know that most people have good intentions, and that the only way forward is in allowing views to be expressed, without emotional pressure and social ostracism.

Especially when it involves climate models that often depict change on the scale of hundreds of years.

The biggest mistake of the scientific majority was explaining that the debate is over even before it had actually started. Thanks to moving a scientific debate into a political debate before things were settled, we are now in a situation with no apparent way forward since the political sides are basically hardened and most scientists are not allowed to question their collectivist stance.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#96

Post by cnasc »

seiferteric wrote: post #25
enraged_camel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's both kinds. Those who refuse to believe the mean average temperature is going up have been declining in numbers as the evidence becomes more and more irrefutable. So they have been jumping to the "OK but we can't know for sure that it is human activity causing it!" camp. There's also a third camp, which says "OK I get it, human activity is causing temperatures to rise, but we can't really do anything meaningf…

That last one is not denialism (maybe defeatism) and from my vantage point isn't too far from reality. I have yet to see any realistic proposed solution(s) to climate change.

> I have yet to see any realistic proposed solution(s) to climate change.

Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air [1] is a free book that has a good start on this

[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#97

Post by educationdata »

Svip wrote: post #83
educationdata wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because climate change is the most serious problem facing humanity. It doesn't really matter what gender people are, if there is not a livable planet for us.

Seriousness and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#98

Post by bibixii929 »

glhaynes wrote: post #73
briandear wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

"(remember when it was called global warming?)" I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]

Most likely it is meant to imply that scientists have retreated from saying "global warming" exists. This is of course false, and that's why it's a dogwhistle and not said directly.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#99

Post by educationdata »

vkou wrote: post #82
educationdata wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference? Because of the impact of getting this wrong.

Impact of getting it wrong and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can be more stupid than serious mistake.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#100

Post by glhaynes »

orf wrote: post #88
glhaynes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(remember when it was called global warming?)" I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]

It's a common argument deniers make to try and spread FUD. > They used to call it global warming , then they rebranded it to (the more accurate) climate change because their narrative was coming apart/everything is fine/elitist climate scientists trying to get money. If they can't even get their story straight why should we believe them?? > This message was brought to you by the 'Sensible Patriotic Americans Against…

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Maybe it's just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon but I feel like I'm seeing the exact phrase "remember when it was called global warming?" a lot lately and I'm having trouble accepting that we're all being subjected to this stupid ploy again. Obviously I shouldn't have such trouble at this point, but there you go.
Post reply on HN