What's Really Warming the World? • Hacker News Board

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#531

Post by talmand » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #378

talmand wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a serious problem in multiple areas in society these days; the inability to ask simple questions that may go against the "accepted" narrative without being personally attacked. Science, religion, politics, sports, it's everywhere. It's a seriously sad state of affairs, but nothing new really, if you think about it. The reach of modern communications has inflated the problem in my opinion.

Here's the thing: honest enquiry is something that should be encouraged. Sea-lioning[1], JAQing off[2] and Gish gallops[3] should not. When you are buried to your eyeballs in bullshit, it's hard to see who is really someone willing learn, and who is just shoveling on more. [1] - http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ [2] - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions [3] - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G…

So the answer is to assume that everyone is pulling your chain in an effort piss you off with their bullshit? That is a prime example as to why I see all this as really sad. If one can't handle the bullshit, perceived or real, slung out in public discourse then maybe one shouldn't participate in the public discourse about that particular topic. Because most likely these are the type people who sling their own bullshit disguised as truth.

My memories of a debate, especially a scientific debate, was that both sides presented their best evidence to determine a likely winner. These days it seems the easiest way to win a debate is to insult the other side enough so that they shut up. If someone uses that tactic in a debate I immediately question the validity of their viewpoint; because it seems they question it themselves and are not willing to admit it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#532

Post by Zuider » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

cholantesh wrote: post #517

Zuider wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article you linked to is almost comical in its petty malevolence, well beyond the point of self-satire. This kind of character assassination, however reprehensible, is ultimately irrelevant. If you believe Dr. Wei Hock Soon is wrong, then show where and how he is mistaken.

Climate scientists have been doing that for almost 25 years at this point, and Soon's response has pretty much been to complain that he's being bullied and that science is being politicised. I find that to be actually comical, almost as much as the presumption that an intelligent and intellectually honest person could do this for as long as Soon has. And that his association with political and industrial think tanks…

You jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#533

Post by frogpelt » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #36

This article only serves to stroke the ego of people who already believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming. It does nothing for people who already deny it. Evidence, no matter how strong doesn't serve to change the nature of a man. People would rather bend the logic and the evidence to fit their convenient perception of reality. Which brings me to the question: "What can change a nature of a man?" Imminent dang…

I'm late.

But I can tell you one HUGE reason people still deny climate change is anthropogenic. It is because it has become such a political even religious movement and most of those pushing the agenda haven't changed their behavior AT ALL. They're still flying around the world in their big fossil-fuel-guzzling jets, driving their fossil-fuel guzzling cars. They are only concerned with using the theory to advance said agenda.

I'm sorry, if you absolutely believed that the world was being destroyed so badly by rising fossil fuel usage, you would cease using it TODAY and no later.

Let us know when you stop denying it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#534

Post by alayne » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 12:49 AM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #522

alayne wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Climate Gate" was investigated and turned up "no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

By the same organization it was against. This conflict of interest should be questioned by anyone.

Nope, by eight different organizations. Your intellectual dishonesty here is sad.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#535

Post by singulaire » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:13 AM UTC

pauleastlund wrote: post #149

mcv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belief?! If that's true, the past 15 years of my life have been a lie! I honestly remembered regret as the correct answer.

Yeah, when I realized that Ravel accepted other answers it was like discovering Santa Clause wasn't real. "Regret" was the answer that made by far the most sense given TNO's narrative. Anyone who played and didn't choose "regret" was wrong.

"Regret" is the answer of the original incarnation, if that's any comfort.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#536

Post by cholantesh » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 1:37 PM UTC

Zuider wrote: post #532

cholantesh wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate scientists have been doing that for almost 25 years at this point, and Soon's response has pretty much been to complain that he's being bullied and that science is being politicised. I find that to be actually comical, almost as much as the presumption that an intelligent and intellectually honest person could do this for as long as Soon has. And that his association with political and industrial think tanks…

You jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.

FWIW, I never took you seriously, because I cannot imagine a serious adult flagging someone for libel for stating an unpleasant fact.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#537

Post by frogpelt » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 1:43 PM UTC

patrickdavey wrote: post #475

birdsbolt wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lovely book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972, through the years authors have updated their book and their models (there's more than 20). It turned out that business-as-usual model extrapolated very well from '70s to '00s. So, even them modelling was fairly good.

Yip, great book, good warnings, of which we have done very little about. Another book to recommend is "This changes everything" ... sets out a very reasonable argument while capitalism as it stands is basically incompatible with doing much to prevent climate change. Worth a read.

Herein lies the rub.

Corrupt politicians will find that using environmental concerns and climate change gives them the proper motivation to say "we need more control and the common man needs fewer freedoms". This is why it's a political issue.

Don't expect masses of people to gobble up the idea that climate change is going to ruin the planet when the motivating factor for a good portion of the people selling the idea is that they can seize more control.

It's no different than terrorism and things like the Patriot Act. Terrorism is a horrible problem and no one wants armed rebels chopping people's heads off in the streets of our cities. But when politicians start their backroom meetings and connive a way to start chipping away at our freedoms and our privacy (I'm being redundant), you start finding terrorism skeptics.

We have to find the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. But all the while the entity that sits between the community and the individual, government, is taking more and more control. And they seem to let no opportunity to do so pass.

Climate change is one of their new, favorite vehicles.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#538

Post by Zuider » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:06 PM UTC

cholantesh wrote: post #536

Zuider wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.

FWIW, I never took you seriously, because I cannot imagine a serious adult flagging someone for libel for stating an unpleasant fact.

I flagged you for libel because you lied.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#539

Post by Zuider » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

cholantesh wrote: post #519

Zuider wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like the infamous Smathers campaign speech? http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to... "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an esta…

No, because that was actually irrelevant. In this context, Soon's record within the scope of climate research is what's being scrutinized, not his personal life. If Soon's opponents were attacking his love of Dune or his tendency to eat falafel, there might be an analogue here.

Irrelevant. The technique you used was the same as Smathers, and your intent was the same - to damage someone's reputation by insinuations and smears. It is low behavior.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#540

Post by cholantesh » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:24 PM UTC

Zuider wrote: post #539

cholantesh wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because that was actually irrelevant. In this context, Soon's record within the scope of climate research is what's being scrutinized, not his personal life. If Soon's opponents were attacking his love of Dune or his tendency to eat falafel, there might be an analogue here.

Irrelevant. The technique you used was the same as Smathers, and your intent was the same - to damage someone's reputation by insinuations and smears. It is low behavior.

Smathers' accusations related to issues that had no bearing on Peppers' merit as a political candidate or his ability to carry out his official duties. My 'insinuations' (actually, again, statements of fact) are related to Soon's behaviour within the context of climate science. If you cannot grasp this, you are not qualified to engage in debate. If you do not wish to for whatever reason, it makes it pretty clear that you are not interested in good faith discussion of this issue and are not worth anyone's time in that regard.