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

Hot or Not?

creon.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 179 posts

Re: Hot or Not?

#141

Post by tehsauce »

starkd wrote: post #125
butterNaN wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like these are a _part_ of the discussion, though? They provide rebuttal of the methods used in the article. Why do you want to shut _them_ down? If one wants to redo all the scientific research that has led to the consensus about Climate Change again, they can do so over and over again. But in 2022, most of us are past the 'discussion' phase. We really, really, need to be in _Action_ phase. The discussions…

He belittled the blog post as not worthy by attacking his credibility. Without knowing anything about him. Science is not about consensus, it is founded on skepticism. Worship your idol at your own pleasure, but don't call it science.

I’d say opposite! He pointed out flaws in the argument and then suggested that his arguments weren’t up to the standard that people with his credentials usually keep!

Re: Hot or Not?

#142

Post by tehsauce »

jml7c5 wrote: post #111
starkd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's comments like this that serve as a reminder of how we can't have valuable discussions about a topic of importance without it degenerating into name-calling and allegations of disloyalty to "science". Too many have become so fearful of climate change they are no long in the realm of a scientific discussion. They are worshipping a religion. The author of the article made a good faith effort to simply look at the d…

> The author of the article made a good faith effort to simply look at the data. Given some of their commentary, I'm not sure it can be claimed they were making a good-faith effort. There is a clear agenda to their analysis.

Yes! I don’t know why anyone commenting on his clear bias are being downvoted.

Re: Hot or Not?

#143

Post by Arnt »

Uh. Paper records of measurements made to unspecified procedures are unimpeachable, while physical records available for laboratory inspection are not?

From that somewhat unusual assessment of source data, he arrives at somewhat unusual conclusions.

Re: Hot or Not?

#144

Post by adamrezich »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #107
adamrezich wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cher·ry-pick /ˈCHerēˌpik/ verb choose and take only (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available. "the company should buy the whole airline and not just cherry-pick its best assets" the author did not cherry pick. in order to cherry pick, the author needs to have had a predetermined thesis such that cherry picking only certain data points would bolster said thesis. instead, th…

How do you know he didn't cherry pick these weather stations? One thing to say that it's not clear whether he did, another to claim - as you have in your post - that he did not.

why would you assume the author's dishonesty?

Re: Hot or Not?

#145

Post by itsoktocry »

lakomen wrote: post #6

All I can say as a 47 year old who lived most of his life in Germany is that the summers when I was a teen, so 30 years ago were considered hot when they were over 25°C. This year in May we had 32°C. Deny or criticize all you want cherries blossoming on Christmas in Berlin is NOT normal. And neither is the absence of snow in winter and mild temperatures. Those graphs don't impress me at all, because I remember what i…

>Those graphs don't impress me at all, because I remember what it was like and see what it's like now.

This is about as anti-science a stance as you can take. Why believe data when you've got your lyin' eyes?

Climate change deniers can use the exact same argument, so how do we get anyehere?

Re: Hot or Not?

#146

Post by itsoktocry »

olodus wrote: post #132
ekianjo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint. Most of the catastrophic predictions from al gore era have not come to pass so this should cause you to doubt the quality of models at hand. If you cant predict anything reliably then its not science.

Counter counter point: Al Gore is not a climate scientist so why would we really listen to his predictions. His most well known movie did have a lie/fault in it (he moved the data to try and show that increased co2 always predates warming if I remember correctly). That does not make climate change fake though and if you listen to the real science most of the predictions has come through. It is just that news media do…

>Al Gore is not a climate scientist so why would we really listen to his predictions.

Wait a minute, do you think Al Gore was, or even claimed to be, the person doing the research he was popularizing?

Re: Hot or Not?

#147

Post by itsoktocry »

happyopossum wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #24

The scientific consensus is more than clear, doing your own "research" isn't going to make a difference except to engage with the people that are already happy to ignore science. If anything you'd have to begin to wonder in what ways airports are going to be different from global averages and I can think of a whole pile of reasons why the two would diverge (such as the presence of a large chunk of asphalt or concrete…

Do you have any specific concerns with this work (other than that the results appear to upset you)?

The number of people here saying "I know it's warmer because I feel it!" is funny, and perfectly demonstrates why these discussions are futile, even among so-called "smart people".

Re: Hot or Not?

#148

Post by jacquesm »

ekianjo wrote: post #51
jacquesm wrote: post #24

The scientific consensus is more than clear, doing your own "research" isn't going to make a difference except to engage with the people that are already happy to ignore science. If anything you'd have to begin to wonder in what ways airports are going to be different from global averages and I can think of a whole pile of reasons why the two would diverge (such as the presence of a large chunk of asphalt or concrete…

> has a whole pile of claims to his name I would expect a far better researched piece of work. they did much more work than the random person who believes evrything they see on TV. that should be saluted, not derided.

It's the quality of the work that is problematic. I'm not of the participation prize generation.

Re: Hot or Not?

#149

Post by ekianjo »

olodus wrote: post #132
ekianjo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint. Most of the catastrophic predictions from al gore era have not come to pass so this should cause you to doubt the quality of models at hand. If you cant predict anything reliably then its not science.

Counter counter point: Al Gore is not a climate scientist so why would we really listen to his predictions. His most well known movie did have a lie/fault in it (he moved the data to try and show that increased co2 always predates warming if I remember correctly). That does not make climate change fake though and if you listen to the real science most of the predictions has come through. It is just that news media do…

I didnt mention al gore by name but al gore era predictions. Most of it was a big miss.

Re: Hot or Not?

#150

Post by ekianjo »

itsoktocry wrote: post #146
olodus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter counter point: Al Gore is not a climate scientist so why would we really listen to his predictions. His most well known movie did have a lie/fault in it (he moved the data to try and show that increased co2 always predates warming if I remember correctly). That does not make climate change fake though and if you listen to the real science most of the predictions has come through. It is just that news media do…

> Al Gore is not a climate scientist so why would we really listen to his predictions. Wait a minute, do you think Al Gore was, or even claimed to be, the person doing the research he was popularizing?

That would not be surprising for someone who invented the interwebs by himself
Post reply on HN