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

Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#11

Post by terhechte »

gd1 wrote: post #8
jmnicolas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what ? He didn't say man made climate change, just climate change. You don't have to be a genius to see the climate is changing. Now for the root cause, I don't know, but human pollution is certainly not helping.

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list ( http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm ). Maybe the story was interesting, maybe it was important, whatever. I'm not reading it on principle if they're going to cross themselves and pray to their green god mid way through. There are a number of people like myself who would actually care about ecolog…

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it.

Your reaction seems to be anger-fueled climate change hate that stops you from thinking in a rational, open minded way.

Edit: Gender Error

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#12

Post by Ntrails »

mavhc wrote: post #6
jmnicolas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what ? He didn't say man made climate change, just climate change. You don't have to be a genius to see the climate is changing. Now for the root cause, I don't know, but human pollution is certainly not helping.

It's pretty simple really, co2 causes heating, co2 is increasing, increase in co2 is from fossil fuels.

Except CO2 from fossil fuels aren't even the largest contribution to "greenhouse gasses" that can be attributed to humans.

Climate change is inevitable. It's happened before many times in the history of the earth, and will happen again. The behaviour of man and it's resulting emissions are largely agreed to have been impactful on the rate of change.

However, I've seen statisticians and scientists poking rational holes in research (and pilloried for daring to do so by the green lobby). So I default to my standard position, which is that both sides are a bit wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll stay here for a while, it's comfortable.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#13

Post by narrator »

gd1 wrote: post #2

Clicked link. Hit Ctrl-F. Typed "clima". Saw this: "I totally think climate change is involved," Lahner says. "I just don’t have evidence yet." Closed tab.

Rules of thumb in modern American political discourse:

1. The reason for the problem is always climate change, otherwise there is no reason. For example, credit bubbles, rising autism rates and people in other countries that don't like us happen spontaneously all by themselves, unless they are caused by climate change.

2. The solution for any problem, including climate change, is always to spend more money. Especially when it comes to education, national defense and health care. Spending more money is the only effective solution to all problems. Once the cost to solve a problem is estimated in a news article the only thing required to fix the problem is for the government to spend the specified amount of money.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#14

Post by waterlesscloud »

terhechte wrote: post #11
gd1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list ( http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm ). Maybe the story was interesting, maybe it was important, whatever. I'm not reading it on principle if they're going to cross themselves and pray to their green god mid way through. There are a number of people like myself who would actually care about ecolog…

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out…

Dr. Lesanna Lahner appears to be a "she". :-)

(corrected typo)

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#15

Post by icebraining »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #14
terhechte wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out…

Dr. Lesanna Lahner appears to be a "she". :-) (corrected typo)

*Lesanna

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#16

Post by gd1 »

terhechte wrote: post #11
gd1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list ( http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm ). Maybe the story was interesting, maybe it was important, whatever. I'm not reading it on principle if they're going to cross themselves and pray to their green god mid way through. There are a number of people like myself who would actually care about ecolog…

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out…

She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#17

Post by Gravityloss »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #9
badgersandjam wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're downvoted. That's bad science regardless of how you look at it. The use of the word "climate" in a quote is a big indicator of bad science as it happens to pay the bills and make a good quote in the press before all other concerns at the moment. If it turns up in a paper at the end and is peer reviewed, then it has some credence but before that, nada. Feynman is rolling in his grave again... Edit:…

It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote. "I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet." If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it. This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.

I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#18

Post by waterlesscloud »

Gravityloss wrote: post #17
waterlesscloud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote. "I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet." If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it. This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.

I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.

Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do.

If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#19

Post by arethuza »

awjr wrote: post #10

So if starfish eat pretty much anything that filters water (muscles), what effect would the Fukushima Accident (March 11th, 2011) have on their radiation levels? Could such an event have triggered a mutation in the virus or could the starfish be hypersensitive to slightly higher background radiation?

Perhaps worth noting that the amount of radiation being leaking from Fukushima are actually pretty small (0.3 terabecquerels per month) when compared to historical H-bomb tests (~100,000 TBq):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24100-should-fukushima...

Edit: There was even one, relatively small, nuclear test about 500 miles from San Diego:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#20

Post by gd1 »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #18
Gravityloss wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.

Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do. If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.

Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.
Post reply on HN