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

The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

climate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 349 posts

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#301

Post by Almad »

briantakita wrote: post #244
acdha wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the people advancing those claims also think they have a lot to gain, too. Those claims are hard to evaluate because humans are famously subjective and prone to misattribution, which is why we invented the scientific method. Every high-quality investigation has been unable to find support for them.

This is why many people don't trust "The Science". It's the positivist materialist institutionalist gaslighting. If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears. If you notice somethingnot published, you are automatically wrong. All whistleblowers must be discredited. Isn't this a tactic of con artists & cult members who have…

So what are the sources for people driven insane by it?

(I have no opinion, but find it mildly suspicious given that I happen to sometimes drive through Germany, and the country seems to be currently less insane than, say, US)

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#302

Post by cowfarts »

ttepasse wrote: post #75
timschmidt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem isn't remembering the scale, it's that Fahrenheit offers me double the effective resolution and descriptive accuracy without awkward decimal points in the numbers used. I like my room at 73F, not 72F or 74F, and I can feel the difference. That's 22.77C. :-/

My main observation in temperature scale and imperial lengths discussions om the Internet is that Americans seem to have a strange aversion against fractional parts of numbers, as if those were irrational. (On the other hand a lot of Americans consume fava beans.)

[dead]

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#303

Post by acdha »

briantakita wrote: post #244
acdha wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the people advancing those claims also think they have a lot to gain, too. Those claims are hard to evaluate because humans are famously subjective and prone to misattribution, which is why we invented the scientific method. Every high-quality investigation has been unable to find support for them.

This is why many people don't trust "The Science". It's the positivist materialist institutionalist gaslighting. If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears. If you notice somethingnot published, you are automatically wrong. All whistleblowers must be discredited. Isn't this a tactic of con artists & cult members who have…

> If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears. If you notice somethingnot published, you are automatically wrong. All whistleblowers must be discredited.

It’s striking how many wrong things are packed into that paragraph. Science isn’t trustworthy because of the institution, but because it challenges its theories and anyone can review and repeat it. In contrast, the claims being made here started from someone’s belief that they have a financial benefit to not having windmills nearby and work backwards to construct a supporting narrative.

> If the conflicted institution hasn't published the opinion or the measurements then it doesn't exist.

More accurately, we’re asking for those measurements so anyone else can review them. We’re asking for the methodology so anyone else can review or replicate it. Emotional reactions like yours tend to be a great sign that someone has a strong interest in a particular outcome and humans are notoriously bad at critically evaluating things they want to be true. Scientists are no different, which is why they put so much effort into looking for ways to test their work.

A great similar example are the “electromagnetic hypersensitive” people who claim to have all kinds of health problems caused by wifi or cellular signals. They’ll claim that they’re not being taken seriously because they’re starting backwards from the position that their health issues are caused by EMF and anyone who disagrees is “suppressing” them. The problem isn’t “lying eyes and ears” — their headaches or sleep problems are real - but that they have made a wrong explanation part of their self-identity and are unwilling to reconsider that. Repeated double-blind studies have shown that these people can’t identify EMF at better than chance, and that they’ll report health issues caused by EMF which never existed, and that’s a tragedy because there is a real cause they’d likely be able to find if they were willing to give up on that theory. Many of the wind power opponents are arguing in bad faith trying to make their aesthetic tastes sound scientific but I’m certain that some of these people have real, non-psychosomatic medical issues which are not caused by turbines but could be localized if they put their effort into broader investigations.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#304

Post by throwup238 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #253
jacobolus wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Big corp" will be massively harmed in the medium term, like everyone else. The NIH is critical for the pharma industry, and the USGS is critical for natural resource extraction industries (etc.). Blowing up federal agencies might juice profits for a quarter or two, but even that is pretty questionable/risky. If the whole economy goes into recession, many basic resources obtained from overseas get taxed, retaliatory…

Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California…

> That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech.

No, they’re not. Biotech VC has been bigger than tech VC in terms of absolute funding for decades (based on annual data from the Venture Capital Association). Most years its not even close.

Pharmaceutical companies do depend on NIH funding but indirectly: most of their products are now acquired rather than developed in house. Universities spin off their NIH funded projects as biotech startups that are funded by VCs and public investors (biotech startups usually IPO long before they have any revenue, which is one of the reasons there’s so much money in biotech VC) and the small fraction that are most successful in clinical trials are acquired by the pharmaceutical industry.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#305

Post by acdha »

renewiltord wrote: post #246
acdha wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re going to make that kind of sweeping claim representing many different people and groups, I’m going to need to see some data. What you’re describing sounds more like the mechanism I described, where rich people use the language of environmentalism to make their NIMBY activities sound less venal but that’s saying that those specific people are hypocrites rather than a general commentary on the entire field.

What evidence would convince you? If I know the bar, I can see if it can be met.

Anything specific? You started with this claim that environmentalists are blocking wind farms for aesthetic reasons, where are some example projects and who’s blocking them? I gave one (Martha’s vineyard) but in that case the major environmental groups backed it while the opposition was either not in the field (e.g. commercial fishermen) or rich people using environmental language but pretty transparently arguing based on real estate values or politics, so my first question would be how large the overall environmental movement is and how representative these people are within it. If, say, you have Greenpeace pro and RFK Jr. and the Kochs con, it’s hard to say that environmentalists as a whole oppose it.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#306

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

righthand wrote: post #85
hallway_monitor wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you cut? I don’t know what I would, but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. I know there’s a lot of hysteria around this, but I’m still at the place where I can be optimistic that the US will come out ahead. At least they’re doing something besides spending more money and acting like everything‘s OK. From a long-term financial stabil…

> but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. Do you have proof of this? Otherwise you are spreading propaganda and lies. “We need to cut stuff because the party I support says so” isn’t proof of a financial apocalypse and is only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s the very hysteria lying in which you refer.

Do they have proof that 33+ trillion dollars in debt will begin snowballing larger than any country can actually service?

Do we need specific evidence about how debt interest works?

Sorry for how snarky this sounds but your response sounds like you don’t believe that the interest on over 33 trillion dollars is a big deal (and it’s growing…)

Please educate me if that’s not how interest or debt works (again I am dead serious here) but it seems disingenuous to claim that some sort of proof is required to point at the debt and say “Ah that’s not a problem unless you PROVE it’s a problem”

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#307

Post by throwaway173738 »

Krssst wrote: post #166
tnecio wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The orders of magnitude are different here. Replacing something that becomes a huge problem within two hundred years with something that (potentially) becomes a problem in a few thousand years -- really is better than spending valuable time on developing an "ideal" solution

Nuclear waste is a local problem. They're solid not gaseous. GHGs are a worldwide problem. Years don't matter if climate change puts an end to human civilization.

Whose locality bears the brunt of this? Do you mind if we put some where you live?

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#308

Post by roboror »

Gerardo1 wrote: post #276
chneu wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. This applies across the board to these firings/rehirings. Why would anyone go back to work for real when you know you're just gonna be fired again?

> Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. Come on, you know you can't just throw that out. Support your claim.

Treating your workforce as disposable results in the best leaving. Blind layoffs is horrible for retention.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#309

Post by MikePlacid »

DrillShopper wrote: post #248
dingnuts wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government, one you would likely dismiss as not a real journalist I'm all for free media but the legacy outlets currently screaming about cuts are primarily upset because THEY just lost a ton of government funding but that's good because I don't want government run news, even if it comes in a bunch of brand names, and it's funny t…

> he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government One probably sponsored by the Russian government: https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...

These days if something isn’t labeled as Russian propaganda it’s probably not true.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#310

Post by MikePlacid »

Terr_ wrote: post #33
labster wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you own the libs if they just start doing what you want? How does that make any sense? No retribution, no payoffs, nothing? Nope, the firings will continue until America is made great again.

Half-disagree: Firings aren't their goal (nor, demonstrably, are cost-savings.) The goal is coercive power over a culture. Firings are just one tool in the toolbox. ______________ Tangentially, loyalty-oaths are another case where the purpose goes beyond the immediate effect. Fascists presenting an allegiance-or-else choice aren't extending any of their own trust to affirmative pledges. They know it's coerced, and th…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN