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

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#21

Post by badgersandjam »

gd1 wrote: post #20
waterlesscloud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories.

To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion.

That's not acceptable.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#22

Post by fit2rule »

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…

We didn't know how to get to the moon, but we knew we could get there if we tried. That's religion. We got to the moon, by doing the things we needed to do to get to the moon: thats Science. You can't have one without the other.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#23

Post by fit2rule »

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?

This started happening before Fukushima.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#24

Post by bjz_ »

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…

> How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? [..] Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it.

Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding.

We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial.

[0]: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#25

Post by mdellabitta »

Ntrails wrote: post #12
mavhc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hole…

There's a name for that move: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#26

Post by jdhendrickson »

Ntrails wrote: post #12
mavhc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hole…

I've linked a short well made video below which addresses your arguments. TLDW Just because man's emissions are relatively small in comparison to the over all natural emissions does not mean they don't affect things.

I implore you, (as you seem a reasonable fellow who values science) to give it a watch and see if you still feel the same way. I'm willing to watch or read any counter argument you care to link if you will do me the same courtesy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#27

Post by debacle »

IIRC, there is a segment of starfish that can be dissolved similar to a sponge, and this is commonly done when the starfish wants to spread out its biological range due to lack of food.

This (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/mysterious-...) seems to be a better article from last year about the same syndrome. Apparently this is a cyclical pattern and may be an as yet understood part of the starfish lifecycle. That article mentions warmer waters, overpopulation, and a potential (but as yet undetected) virus, which is also having an impact on the east coast.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#28

Post by Gravityloss »

badgersandjam wrote: post #21
gd1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.

I disagree completely.

Thought experiment:

An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions.

He wants to prevent those deaths.

He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever.

Seems logical and humane to me.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#29

Post by [deleted] »

badgersandjam wrote: post #21
gd1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.

[deleted]

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#30

Post by lotsofmangos »

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.

By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.
Post reply on HN