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

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Hot or Not?

#171

Post by misslibby »

jacquesm wrote: post #168
misslibby wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "environmental scientists and academics" in question have probably also been accused of bad science by their opponents. And who gets to decide who is the scientist in that debate? Shellenberger and Lomborg have presumable studied the issue for decades, so at what point does one cross into "being a scientist" territory? Years of study apparently doesn't do it, so what does? Obama's seal of approval? You are confus…

It requires continued adherence to the scientific method. As soon as you stop doing that you stop being a scientist, whether your name is Shellenberger, Lomborg or Watson for that matter isn't relevant. Science is what you do not who you are.

Sure - but then how do you verify that some alleged scientist has been doing that, if you are not allowed/worthy of checking their work?

Re: Hot or Not?

#172

Post by misslibby »

mikkergp wrote: post #166
misslibby wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not get the impression that "it's complicated" is the usual way to introduce it. The usual way is to claim billions of scientists allegedly agree and it is supposedly settled science. "Also, the IPCC put out a like 1000 page report, it's not like this information is being hidden." Yeah that is actually more fishy than convincing. They should be able to present it in a digestible manner. A 1000 page report is ju…

You should cure cancer.

I am not the one making grandiose claims about curability of cancer.

Have you ever even looked at the IPCC report?

Re: Hot or Not?

#173

Post by misslibby »

jacquesm wrote: post #170
misslibby wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And this is just the measurements part: There is also the problem of predatory journals etc etc. - all of these can skew the "consensus" if you don't account for them." But doesn't this very sentence from you imply that there is no such consensus as you claim? Apparently there are lots of publications that disagree, so where do you get your consensus from? " the composition of the field is always changing to some de…

> Everything only has probabilities. But that does not mean that when there are two possible outcomes that these carry equal weight: the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point. > I am saying that scientific output should be verifiable by other people. It is. Reproducibility and peer review are part and parcel of scien…

" the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point."

Even now there are various scenarios, not a single consensus. And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure?

Btw it is not about humans influencing climate (of course they do), but about the doomsday scenarios.

"Reproducibility and peer review are part and parcel of science and it is always done by other people than the ones involved in the original research."

Peer review is not a a guarantee for good science, it was invented for the government grant system. Sorry if people call on the peer review system, to me it just shows they are delusional about the workings of the science systems in most places.

"But to you 'other people' may include people that have not studied the subject matter and that are not capable of following the arguments"

Everybody can study the subject matter, that is the thing. It is you who claims only certain people of your choosing are capable of doing so.

"And I'll throw my lot in with the 99.9%, not because it makes my life any easier but simply because that makes good sense."

Do you even know what the 99.9% say? You can check how that number was derived - it was people evaluating abstracts and judging whether those papers agree that humans affect climate. It doesn't say everybody agrees on the doomsday scenarios.

Re: Hot or Not?

#174

Post by adamrezich »

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…

if it was just Al Gore there wouldn't be an issue. but it keeps happening: https://extinctionclock.org

Re: Hot or Not?

#175

Post by jacquesm »

misslibby wrote: post #171
jacquesm wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires continued adherence to the scientific method. As soon as you stop doing that you stop being a scientist, whether your name is Shellenberger, Lomborg or Watson for that matter isn't relevant. Science is what you do not who you are.

Sure - but then how do you verify that some alleged scientist has been doing that, if you are not allowed/worthy of checking their work?

Of course you are allowed. And whether you are worthy or not is up to you but just gathering a bunch of questionable data, throwing it in the blender, ignoring all evidence to the contrary and using that to spread FUD is definitely not science.

Re: Hot or Not?

#176

Post by jacquesm »

misslibby wrote: post #173
jacquesm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything only has probabilities. But that does not mean that when there are two possible outcomes that these carry equal weight: the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point. > I am saying that scientific output should be verifiable by other people. It is. Reproducibility and peer review are part and parcel of scien…

" the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point." Even now there are various scenarios, not a single consensus. And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure? Btw it is not about humans influencing climate (of course they do), but about the doomsday scenarios. "Reprod…

> And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure?

I also read that report, but I got a different vibe from it than you did. What I read was a bunch of settled stuff, a bunch of stuff where the results are predictable but the exact circumstances are not and a bunch of still open stuff requiring more research hopefully resulting in being able to settle other questions. It's pretty much like any other scientific report that I've read with the difference that it spans the globe.

The tricky bit is that the countries that are doing the least to help stave this off are also the ones best positioned to ride it out unless we end up with one of the worst case scenarios.

But locally some countries are already experiencing the first set of symptoms and it isn't pretty. (Notably: the South of Europe and North Africa)

> Btw it is not about humans influencing climate (of course they do), but about the doomsday scenarios.

The doomsday scenarios will come to pass if we don't make some pretty drastic changes. Personally I won't live to see it, but my kids most likely will, even if they're off by a couple of decades.

Because the thing that there is a lot of discussion about is the exact dates, not necessarily on what the consequences are.

Anyway, you seem to have made up your mind on this and I have more important things to do (in the short term...).

Re: Hot or Not?

#177

Post by milosmns »

tehsauce wrote: post #137
milosmns wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in multiple places in the article, isn’t it?

Not really, the overall tone of the article is more like “my weekend project failed to produce results that agree with established ideas, everyone in that field are idiots because they have ‘science’ in their name”.

Eh, I didn't read it that way. I felt like it was more of a "I crunched some data, might be wrong, pls check" kind of article

Re: Hot or Not?

#178

Post by misslibby »

jacquesm wrote: post #175
misslibby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - but then how do you verify that some alleged scientist has been doing that, if you are not allowed/worthy of checking their work?

Of course you are allowed. And whether you are worthy or not is up to you but just gathering a bunch of questionable data, throwing it in the blender, ignoring all evidence to the contrary and using that to spread FUD is definitely not science.

How is it not science? Of course that is also science. Can you point out something where he broke your rule of using scientific methods?

All he did so far was provide some data points. The "real" scientists should be able to explain them easily.

Btw, since I was just talking about her elsewhere, would you say Greta Thunberg qualifies as a scientist?

Re: Hot or Not?

#179

Post by misslibby »

jacquesm wrote: post #176
misslibby wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point." Even now there are various scenarios, not a single consensus. And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure? Btw it is not about humans influencing climate (of course they do), but about the doomsday scenarios. "Reprod…

> And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure? I also read that report, but I got a different vibe from it than you did. What I read was a bunch of settled stuff, a bunch of stuff where the results are predictable but the exact circumstances are not and a bunch of still open stuff requiring more research hopefully resulting in being able to settle other question…

"I also read that report, but I got a different vibe from it than you did."

You read the 1000 pages? Respect! But is it even "science" or just a bunch of predictions?

"The doomsday scenarios will come to pass if we don't make some pretty drastic changes."

They won't, and afaik even the IPCC scenarios are not all doomsday scenarios. But there is no point arguing it with true believers.

"But locally some countries are already experiencing the first set of symptoms and it isn't pretty. (Notably: the South of Europe and North Africa)"

Are they? I have asked the question a lot to point out a real climate change impact, and never received an answer. There were answers, but when I looked into it, the real reason was always something else, like drilling wells and depleting the ground water and so on. Non climate change human actions still do enormously more environmental damage than climate change.

Of course if you can claim "it was climate change", especially as a third world country, you are eligible for receiving a lot of monetary compensation. So most articles and claims attach it as a footnote, "also because of climate change".

Post reply on HN