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

An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#21

Post by buerkle »

gretful wrote: post #6
npsimons wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

40 years ago, global cooling was a media fairy tale. It had little scientific backing.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#22

Post by RyanMcGreal »

gretful wrote: post #6
npsimons wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

This is a red herring, used to hand-wave away the serious, broad, deep, and highly credible body of evidence that points to significant human-caused global warming.

So-called "global cooling" was a fairly marginal conjecture that was floated in the 1970s but never taken very seriously by most climate scientists. Already by 1970, most climate research focused on warming, not cooling.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#23

Post by krastanov »

gretful wrote: post #6
npsimons wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

I made an account specifically to address this fallacy.

It is absolute nonsense to pretend that "Global Cooling" was ever an accepted scientific prediction.

Wikipedia is sufficient for a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

BadAstronomy is a well respected scientific journalism blog that has a more personal and less formal take on this nonsense: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_...

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#24

Post by gd1 »

acqq wrote: post #17
gretful wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

Remember: the science just improves, and the science works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforesta…

Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#25

Post by crusso »

scarmig wrote: post #15
crusso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural…

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently says things that align with your pre-existing opinions? Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth, but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With That) with, say, RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ Th…

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word

It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view.

Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society.

I really don't spend enough brain cells to understand the issues as well as the climate scientists, but I am good/have relevant experience in two important ways.

1. I've worked with simulation enough to know that they aren't worth crap if they don't have a track record for predicting reality. Climate models have had no appreciable success at predicting long range climate. As much as you may want to, you can't put the cart before the horse. The validity of the model has to be proved before they can be trusted. Before that happens, you're using religious thinking and trying to label those who don't agree with you heretics.

2. I'm good at spotting bullshit politics masked as scientific authority. I've found the IPCC, Mann, et al. to be extremely political in their approach to Science. They trash people who don't agree with them and they don't just admit it when they and their models are significantly wrong.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#26

Post by acqq »

gd1 wrote: post #24
acqq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: the science just improves, and the science works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforesta…

Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.

No, through the better scientific work. Without it, it's just trolling. Better scientific work isn't produced by deniers simply because they aren't actually interested in the science. Just like in the article. Please read the article. Have you?

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#27

Post by crusso »

tvladeck wrote: post #16
crusso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural…

> Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to figure out what's really going on. Sure, but let's also enact policies that help make our societies and economies more robust to whatever that answer is. When there are time lags involved, you cannot wait for perfect information before you act.

let's also enact policies societies and economies more robust to whatever that answer is

I agree completely with that. As a first step, I'd be happy if our federal government could somehow balance and claw the debt back to a point where we will have financial reserves against future challenges rather than our current extremely vulnerable position.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#28

Post by scarmig »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #20
npsimons wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

> In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels... Sea level rise has not accelerated in twenty years of measurement[0] (depending how you cherry pick the analysis it is actually decelerating[1]) and will add 160mm or about half a foot if the next fifty years is the same pace as the last twenty. I don't think that's going to collapse very many economies. [0] http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ [1]…

I hope you realize that choosing twenty years is itself cherry picking.

Here's a fun exercise for you: what would the real second derivative have to be in order for it to be clearly positive over a mere twenty year interval?

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#29

Post by mlvljr »

buerkle wrote: post #21
gretful wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

40 years ago, global cooling was a media fairy tale. It had little scientific backing.

Now the things are different!! :)

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#30

Post by scarmig »

crusso wrote: post #25
scarmig wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently says things that align with your pre-existing opinions? Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth, but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With That) with, say, RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ Th…

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view. Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society. I really don't spend enough brain…

"Bullshit politics"

"crap"

Keep it civil.

You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to her AGW denialism.

2) is, naturally, an argument from "climate science is bunk because climate scientists are evil because crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil," which is unfortunately a common logical error.

Post reply on HN