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

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Hot or Not?

#151

Post by ekianjo »

jacquesm wrote: post #148
ekianjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Doing raw data visualization and being very careful about not making conclusive comments seems like a proper way to step in the subject without pretending to know more than anyone else. Also he didnt cherry pick what would have been the most convenient ones to make a point.

Compare that with typical media science reporting which is often much worse and misleading at best when not grossly wrong.

Quality work starts with data exploration and data mining. I see this article as an invitation to check the actual data thats available, if anything.

Re: Hot or Not?

#152

Post by thehappypm »

CrazyStat wrote: post #108
thehappypm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outliers are likely to drag the averages down, not up. The only really substantial global outlier events are volcanic eruptions, which cause a net cooling. Everything else (hurricanes and the like) is just heat moving around

We're looking at individual airport temperature records here, not global means.

So? A big volcanic eruption could cool many airports.

Re: Hot or Not?

#153

Post by jacquesm »

ekianjo wrote: post #151
jacquesm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Doing raw data visualization and being very careful about not making conclusive comments seems like a proper way to step in the subject without pretending to know more than anyone else. Also he didnt cherry pick what would have been the most convenient ones to make a point. Compare that with typical media science reporting which is often much worse and misleading at best when not grossly wrong. Quality work starts wi…

> I see this article as an invitation to check the actual data thats available

It isn't. The only thing it does is stir the pot and give the climate change deniers another straw to try to cling to.

Re: Hot or Not?

#154

Post by jacquesm »

itsoktocry wrote: post #145
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?

Reality really doesn't care though.

Re: Hot or Not?

#155

Post by starkd »

jdlshore wrote: post #134
starkd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But they still need to come out of their labs and talk to normal people by persuading them. Their scientific perch doesn't give them the right to be a dicatator. We are still free to reject their conclusions. That is our right.

That’s kind of a non-sequitor, isn’t it? Scientists aren’t being dictators. But climate scientists specifically are raising alarms, with an unprecedented level of consensus. We ignore those alarms at our peril. Climate science is full of well-meaning laypeople rehashing basic facts, and doing so poorly. I’m not a climate scientist, and I don’t know the details, but I know enough to know that figuring out historical t…

They are not all "crackpots". Many environmentalists have come forward stressing the importance of walking back some of the verge-of-catastrophe alarms that have been pulled. (Shellenberger, Bjorn Lomborg, and one former Obama administration advisor, to name a few). They are not saying its a non-problem, but they are saying it's completely manageable without destroying civilisation by hiking the cost of energy.

These alarms bells have been pulled repeatedly over the past 50 years. Calls for imminent catastrophe in just 10 years if nothing is done. That was 20 years ago. At some point, you have to wonder just who is profiting off of your fears while flying around in their private jets. That should tell you something.

Re: Hot or Not?

#156

Post by olodus »

ekianjo wrote: post #149
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…

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

Yeah sorry, realised later that I had read your comment wrong and missed the "era".

I do still disagree though with that most of the scientific predictions has been wrong. I think a lot of what was pushed as scientific predictions were not really what was said by the scientific community.

Re: Hot or Not?

#157

Post by olodus »

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?

I don't know or care who provided him with his information but parts of it clearly didn't pass scientific rigour. Since it seems the claims done by Al Gore was here used to discredit the actual climate science, I felt I needed to comment on that some of those claims by Gore would clearly not been possible to publish in a paper, making it not science.

Re: Hot or Not?

#158

Post by wrycoder »

jacquesm wrote: post #154
itsoktocry wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Reality really doesn't care though.

Exactly.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_...

Re: Hot or Not?

#159

Post by CrazyStat »

thehappypm wrote: post #152
CrazyStat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're looking at individual airport temperature records here, not global means.

So? A big volcanic eruption could cool many airports.

Once we recognize that we're talking about local rather than global there are many local outliers that increase temperatures, countering your argument that volcanic eruptions are the only global outliers.

Re: Hot or Not?

#160

Post by jdlshore »

starkd wrote: post #155
jdlshore wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s kind of a non-sequitor, isn’t it? Scientists aren’t being dictators. But climate scientists specifically are raising alarms, with an unprecedented level of consensus. We ignore those alarms at our peril. Climate science is full of well-meaning laypeople rehashing basic facts, and doing so poorly. I’m not a climate scientist, and I don’t know the details, but I know enough to know that figuring out historical t…

They are not all "crackpots". Many environmentalists have come forward stressing the importance of walking back some of the verge-of-catastrophe alarms that have been pulled. (Shellenberger, Bjorn Lomborg, and one former Obama administration advisor, to name a few). They are not saying its a non-problem, but they are saying it's completely manageable without destroying civilisation by hiking the cost of energy. These…

I wasn’t familiar with those names, so I looked them up. Neither is a climate scientist. According to Wikipedia, “ Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.” Lomborg’s book was found to be “scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts.”

I'll let you have the last word.

Post reply on HN