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

221–230 of 247 posts

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#221

Post by saudioger »

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).

So you're ignoring the variety of ways the data has been presented by news outlets, artists, and filmmakers. There are few mediums where this information hasn't been expressed in some form.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#222

Post by saudioger »

microcolonel wrote: post #154
bibixii929 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith, especially those employed by think tanks and other PR organisations. As the questions are political, you need rhetoric. As unfortunately as it may be, it should be obvious by now to everyone following politics that being "polite" is not a winning recipe in the game.

> There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith These people act as authorities as well. If the alternative is to appeal to another authority, then it seems like choosing not to change opinions is a reasonable course of action for somebody who is already convinced on the basis of authority. The public case for concern about climate change has been marred with incessant ex…

>lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013

Citation needed

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#223

Post by kjeetgill »

lordlimecat wrote: post #216
camgunz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an appeal to authority. That would literally be, "I'm a climate scientist, trust me". What's actually happening is: "I'm a climate scientist, trust me, but if you don't, look at this ludicrous amount of data and research gathered/conducted over generations".

AFAIK appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is an expert in an unrelated field. It is not an appeal to authority to reference the opinion of a well-established astrophysicist when discussing astrophysics.

No, it is always logical falacy in a literal sense. The existence or the appeal of any authority is not a logical argument. If you think the authority is justified by factual, logical arguments you're meant to cut out the middle man and simply present those facts and their logical argument.

It's worth saying that no one really expects you to live life or strictly act like this. Avoiding fallacies is really just about putting forth a concrete logical agument.

Retoric (and life) can be plenty productive without logical rigor and appeals to authority have meaning and value outside of 'logic'. Ethos, logos, pathos anyone?

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#224

Post by kisstheblade »

cfuen71 wrote: post #173
martinpw wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you propose for a zero value on the Y axis? The only number that actually makes sense is zero Kelvin (since 0C and 0F are just arbitrary numbers). At that scale you will not see anything. But that doesn't mean nothing is happening. The charts are fine.

At a 0-100 Celsius scale, or whatever is the equivalent in Fahrenheit, there will be an almost impossible to see increase over the time span of 100 years. I'm not saying nothing is happening, but those charts are completely deceiving.

How would you chart your body temperature? Starting with 0 kelvin? Then you could conclude that all is well because you can't spot a 2 degree increase, right?

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#225

Post by edanm »

colllectorof wrote: post #203
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. If one wishes to disagree with said authorities, i.e. with the status quo , the burden of proof is on the person bringing the disagreement. The problem with anti-vaxers and climate deniers is the…

>They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. Exactly. This directly contradicts the notion that "the research out there" is by itself sufficient to convince anyone of anything. People rely on authorities, and different groups of people have different entities they consider authoritative. >So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. Sure. Like, uh, elec…

I completely agree with your points, and wish you weren't being downvoted for them. I'm completely on the "climate change is real" side (sad that I feel I have to declare my loyalty), but I think most people simply aren't engaging with how people actually form opinions, which is why so much of politics becomes simply impossible. And I mean understanding this from both sides - recognizing how other people form invalid opinions, but also understanding that how you form (hopefully valid) opinions is usually also a "pick which experts I listen to" kind of thing. Hopefully, you're picking the right experts because you understand reasoning and the scientific process - but to pretend you're only going by the science, or rather, that "your side" is only going by the science, is to ignore the fact that 99% of people can't tell you any argument or counterargument for any belief they hold.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#226

Post by lancewiggs »

saudioger wrote: post #220
mjfl wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for other consensuses, for example evolution, any individual person can readily explain how it works to a anyone else. Then it is up to the person hearing the model to accept it as fact, and maybe they make some logical error rejecting it. But until you explain to them the model, I don't think you should have any expectation that they should believe you. It sounds like no one responding to me actually understands…

You can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across various complexities. You can go as deep as you want. Hell, there's a webcomic visualization ( https://xkcd.com/1732/ ) that cites multiple sources. There are multiple documentaries outlining it. How much more accessible are you requiring this information to be? Yo…

And if you don't want to/can't do that - then you can trust the climate science professionals who spend their life doing just that. And they are all screaming at the rest of us.

I'm guessing that these deniers don't question other complex things like how their hardware and software works, how gravity works or how papers is made.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#227

Post by systoll »

m3mpp wrote: post #215
systoll wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210kla... Here’s the GISP2 data, plus samples from the past two centuries. Still seems pretty extreme to me.

I think this one shows it even better: http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBo... And yes, there's a fast climb, but it's not the only instance in history, look at 800AD, 200AD, and a lot more in the past, it seems to be the way the temp fluctuates, very sharply. If we get back to the 10,000 years chart, do the last 150 years seems off the chart? If anything, it shows that we're cooler than the l…

A graph that starts at 1840 doesn't show the past 10 000 years at all -- in the long view, that's all just a bunch of noise. What happened to the 'completely different picture' that the 10 000 year view held?

Here's the 10 000 same graph with some colours https://i.imgur.com/GWhaGCU.png Blue periods were colder than 2009. Yellow periods were warmer. The past 10 000 years were mostly colder than 2009, and we've only gotten warmer since then.

And... precedent isn't the main issue here. Those large bumps have causes. This time, the cause is us. It's up to us [collectively] whether we want this.

Maybe the Roman Period's ~-29.75C represents a better climate for humanity than the 1855 levels. That's right around that '2 degree limit' people talk about. If that's a target, it's about time to transition out of making 'as much CO2 possible as fast as possible'.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#228

Post by dagss »

mjfl wrote: post #211
saudioger wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination of every sighted person. There isn't even a single point of authority here. The determination is made by climate scientists, biologists, ecologists, etc... across multiple independent governments, allies and enemies alike. Argument from authority is meant to av…

But for other consensuses, for example evolution, any individual person can readily explain how it works to a anyone else. Then it is up to the person hearing the model to accept it as fact, and maybe they make some logical error rejecting it. But until you explain to them the model, I don't think you should have any expectation that they should believe you. It sounds like no one responding to me actually understands…

I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else.

Yes you can get a brief summary of what it is about. But you are not at all in a position to evaluate how sound it is without spending months or years.

Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on. What I mean is: How believable the explanation is is only correlated to the rhetorical skill of the presenter. It is not related to how true the proposition is.

I think this is a general problem. Climate isn't an exception in any way, it just happens to be the one area that really matters for our future (consequences of people not believing evolution is far far less).

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#229

Post by microcolonel »

saudioger wrote: post #222
microcolonel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith These people act as authorities as well. If the alternative is to appeal to another authority, then it seems like choosing not to change opinions is a reasonable course of action for somebody who is already convinced on the basis of authority. The public case for concern about climate change has been marred with incessant ex…

>lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013 Citation needed

Al Gore continued to repeat this claim until at least 2009, my source is snopes and their sources.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

I trust Snopes here since they are desperately attempting to cast Gore's statements in a positive light. They choose to address whether Gore "predicted" this event, rather than whether he disseminated the prediction. If the question is whether he confidently disseminated this prediction, the answer is a resounding yes.

The IPCC publish estimates generally between 2035 (on the very low end) and 2100+ (generally "possibly before the end of the 21st century", i.e. possibly later) for the arctic ice cap to melt almost completely.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#230

Post by flukus »

microcolonel wrote: post #229
saudioger wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013 Citation needed

Al Gore continued to repeat this claim until at least 2009, my source is snopes and their sources. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ I trust Snopes here since they are desperately attempting to cast Gore's statements in a positive light. They choose to address whether Gore "predicted" this event, rather than whether he disseminated the prediction. If the question is whether he confidently dis…

> for example, lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013

Where is they citation of Al Gore claiming the arctic will be ice free? Everything in that source is prefaced with terms like "could Be" and "as soon as", which you seem to be interpreting as a complete certainty. If I said I had cancer and could die as early 2018 then I wouldn't be wrong on New Years day 2019.

Where's the citation of the Statue of Liberty being underwater? Even with an ice free arctic this wouldn't happen.

Post reply on HN