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

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#181

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 8:32 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…

[deleted]

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#182

Post by canhascodez » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 8:33 PM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #150

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy The data are publicly available and the papers relatively accessible. The dismissal isn’t because climate deniers reject the mainstream. It’s because they reject the mainstream without trying to understand it.

So, how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? Can they cite the list of publications that convinced them to give or not give you the vaccinations? This is not how it works the real world. Saying "research is out there" is absolutely meaningless in convincing people, especially if you don't even post actual links/citations (which most people never do).

I find that taking a historical perspective on scientific topics is quite useful, but particularly on this topic. How did we discover all of this? Why are people so sure that this is real? This is the best history I've found:

  The Discovery of Global Warming
  https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

It's very well-referenced, and should provide a useful perspective on the history of climate research.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#183

Post by antisthenes » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #51

luckydata wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you not see how your reply to the OP's sincere question amounts to the same lackluster, overgeneralized, and lazy intellectual stance that the people you're criticizing take on climate science? You couldn't have more aptly proved the OP's point.

> Do you not see how your reply to the OP's sincere question amounts to the same lackluster, overgeneralized, and lazy intellectual stance that the people you're criticizing take on climate science?

Do not give equal weight to nonsense beliefs and beliefs supported by decades of science. That's the real toxicity - when you try to attempt to give them equivalency despite different efforts having gone into forming them.

I'm sorry that isn't clear to some people, but that doesn't make nonsense any less excusable or valid or show a need to 'win their hearts'.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#184

Post by wdr1 » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 8:48 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…

+1

I believe there's sufficient evidence to justify action on climate change.

However, it's a complex topic with complex solutions.

I've found even basic questioning results in a kneejerk "climate denier!" reaction from most.

Sadly, it's actually counterproductive for making progress on a very important issue.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#185

Post by Tycho » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:02 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…

Or going the another way, why such faith in the climate fitters?

Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit:

* lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data

* argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community”

* unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails

* second rate academic talent jumping on a career long gravy train

* stipulations by leftist politicians for concentration of vast powers to control the economy to fix the problem

* creeping attribution of all sorts of other problems as second order effects of warming

* rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change”

* the ridiculous idea that “trusting science” is the same thing as trusting scientists. Nobody actually trusts scientists, they trust feedback loops and well-aligned incentives. Take those things away and the trust rightfully evaporates.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#186

Post by canhascodez » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #104

mirimir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 denia…

“Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." "Keep the pressure on." "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside" "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." From Saul Alisky…

The theory of CO2-induced climate change is older and better-established than Relativity. It was also considered completely disproved for fifty years, by multiple independent lines of evidence. Clearly something happened to change everyone's mind, and it would probably do you some good to know about that, but the point is, it's not like there's some contradictory line of evidence that has gone unexamined. We've been trying to disprove this theory for twelve decades, and the actual scientific controversy ended at latest in the early 90s. At this point, the list of observations which would invalidate AGW is both very short and very nonsensical.

I am not sure why you are discussing a film. I would caution you against assuming that most people, particularly in this forum, are deriving their knowledge from a single film, as opposed to peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, or the IPCC reports. Personally, I consider this topic to be fairly important, especially given that I grew up in Alaska: climate change is an undeniable feature of the landscape there. I would agree that a lack of high-quality information on this subject is a problem. This is a resource that I would recommend:

  The Discovery of Global Warming
  https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#187

Post by xg15 » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #177

dragonwriter wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" Climate deniers are either dishonest people spreading lies aimed at sacrificing the future of humanity for short-term personal gain or people following them in the destruction of humanity out of tribal allegiance. There is literally no conceivable level of verbal vitriol that isn't far better than they deserve; the only reason for any restraint in that dimension is tactic…

Climate deniers are either dishonest people spreading lies aimed at sacrificing the future of humanity for short-term personal gain or people following them in the destruction of humanity out of tribal allegiance. This seems a little extreme. Do you really think everyone labelled a denier is dishonest, in that they actually know the "truth" and instead are choosing for personal gain to spread "lies"? Is there really…

Ooh, I see. So he created a deliberately misleading graph by cherry-picking data and ignoring scientific best practices because he wants to help climate science. Now it makes sense.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#188

Post by pas » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #185

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…

Or going the another way, why such faith in the climate fitters? Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit: * lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data * argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community” * unseemly behavi…

These are the same people who think Trump is always right. So maybe their BS detector is biased or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#189

Post by Tycho » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #188

Tycho wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or going the another way, why such faith in the climate fitters? Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit: * lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data * argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community” * unseemly behavi…

These are the same people who think Trump is always right. So maybe their BS detector is biased or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hoodwinked by Russian bots no doubt. Certainly nothing to do with the low credibility of the political establishment.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#190

Post by jaredklewis » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #111

saudioger wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.

Specialization is an unavoidable fact of life. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. If my car mechanic (or 99 out of 100 car mechanics) says I need new brake pads, and I don’t know anything about car maintenance, why would I reject their diagnosis? I would not only be endangering myself, but other drivers.

If I am going to reject my mechanic’s diagnosis I need to have strong evidence and reasoning to support my position. Climate deniers don’t have that, and their pigheadedness puts everyone at danger.

Efforts to summarize the scientific evidence for global warming for laymen are myriad. The arguments and evidence for global warming are extremely accessible.

I don’t see how the blame isn’t on the climate deniers.