Live data from Hacker News

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

reuters.com

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#41
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All science is 'advocacy science' when you deny the conclusions.

I deny creation science. I am a denier.

You can't deny creation science, as creation science hasn't yet formed a coherent hypothesis capable of being denied.

Climate science has testable hypotheses that continue to give reliable, observable and consistent results. Claiming that its conclusions are wrong requires denial, as no one has yet been able to demonstrate that that they are wrong.

Creation science hasn't even yet been able to form a framework that can be tested, let alone denied. I'd argue it doesn't even qualify as a science.

Yes I'm being pedantic. Yes I will die on this hill.

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#42
post #3

Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.

Personally, I'd like to see a financial market develop that allows people to predict future global temperatures in short, mid and long term time frames. (let's say 5 years, 10 years, 30 years). That market would reveal humanities unbiased view of climate change predictions. It would give us a great tool to put things in perspective.

Good suggestion, but first you'd need consensus on methods for measuring and calculating global temperatures. Currently, several different methods are used by established institutions and the results come with a relatively large confidence range.

Personally, I'd rather bet on temperatures at single stations than what these observatories calculate.

Here are some details: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/sur... (scroll to "What do other groups do differently?")

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really interesting insight! I hadn't caught myself doing that, thanks for pointing it out.

Yeah, it's funny how we work. Heck, read my comment, you can probably just as easily pick out my ideology. I wonder if linguistics has a term for that. It's something like "spin", but not exactly because it's not intentional or malicious.

Yeah, it's a great example of how subconscious bias shapes linguistic constructions. I'm sure we all do this all the time :)

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you consider the sharp upturn in divide between the rich and the poor since 1972 to be "totally reasonable".

I definitely don't! I also don't attribute that to fiat currency. I attribute that at least within the United States to "trickle-down economics," reduction of the top federal income tax rate in the US from 92% in the 1940s (and 72% in the 1970s) to 37% this year [1], and the estate tax from the high 70% range [2] in the 1970s to 0% moving forward. The reduction in the social safety net and the government services aff…

> I attribute that at least within the United States to "trickle-down economics

Trickle-down economics has never been a policy promoted by any economist (left or right) in history nor a policy of the US or any western country. It was originally a political invention. And quite an effective one at that because the media/pundits have used it for decades as a strawman to endlessly attack. Of course it's far easier to win against an adversary who doesn't exist.

> Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this “trickle-down” theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a “trickle-down” policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.

> It is not just in politics that the nonexistent “trickle-down” theory is found. It has been attacked in the New York Times, in the Washington Post, and by professors at prestigious American universities — and even as far away as India. Yet none of those who denounce a “trickle-down” theory can quote anybody who actually advocated it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/01/trickle-down-lie-thom...

Sowell's longer treatise on it goes into it in greater detail exploding this myth:

http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Sowell...

>> We fight for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them.

- J.A. Schumpeter

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#45
Ah, hyperbolic climate doom - literal doom - the religion of the wealthy and paranoid. The left keeps pushing the narrative of never-ending and accelerating misery, while everything keeps getting better. There are lots of poison peddlers these days, the climate doom-and-gloomers are just one flavor.

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#46
post #45

Ah, hyperbolic climate doom - literal doom - the religion of the wealthy and paranoid. The left keeps pushing the narrative of never-ending and accelerating misery, while everything keeps getting better. There are lots of poison peddlers these days, the climate doom-and-gloomers are just one flavor.

>while everything keeps getting better.

Are out of control wildfires, intense tropical storms, prolonged heat waves and rising sea levels a part of your analysis there?

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly this is a fluff piece of journalism. He said - she said. "5 sigma". Sounds great. What does it mean? 2 out of 3 satellites reported data that gave the 5 sigma conclusion by 2005, the third by 2016. Great. What does it mean? It doesn't really say, other than a 95 percent chance that global warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Somebody said they would like to notch that up to 99% chance. Another person would…

I deride it based on bad journalism AND bad science. Not all climate science is bad, of course. The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science. Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not…

To be fair, the linked article contains no science ;-) It certainly contains none of the science that you are describing. It's an appeal to authority. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing gum after dinner. You're taking a particularly bad article and using it as a launching pad for describing your own issues which are only related by topic.

I'm writing this not to slap your hand, but in hopes that you can get to a point where all your posts aren't down voted ;-). Your message is not cohesive enough to follow. If you pick and choose which thing to talk about more carefully, I think you will find that you will get a much more responsive audience.

For example, in this case, the original article was absolutely rubbish. The only apparent reason one can see for it being on the front page is because it had the "right" headline. Nobody needs that kind of thing. People like me who feel that the science shows that we need to change our lifestyles for our future prosperity don't need this. People like you who (seemingly) feel that the science shows that we don't need to change our lifestyles don't need it. We're on the same side. Don't waste that opportunity!

A rant against the world is very satisfying, but it's not very effective. You will possibly pick up other disenfranchised people, but I don't think it will go much further. Instead, I recommend trying to respond with laser precision and discuss individual problems without bringing in all the other baggage. This time would be a good time to talk about how they are quoting scientists who are talking about conclusions with virtually nothing to explain what those conclusions are about. Perhaps you can say that we shouldn't be using such terrible journalism as input into important political dialog. Such an insight will be valuable for everybody. Another time, if real science is described, you can discuss problems with statistical techniques, etc, etc. Again, it will benefit everyone. Ideally, I would suggest that you attempt to downplay your own political agenda (everyone has one!). You have your own preferred outcome, but if you don't stress it, you have a much better chance that people with the opposite viewpoint will feel welcome enough to read what you have to write. From there, they may start to think that they should revisit their own position.

Anyway, I hope that proves helpful to you. I was reading your posts and really felt bad for your situation, which is why I decided to reply. Maybe the advice won't be good for you, but I hope it's worth thinking about.

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#48
post #45

Ah, hyperbolic climate doom - literal doom - the religion of the wealthy and paranoid. The left keeps pushing the narrative of never-ending and accelerating misery, while everything keeps getting better. There are lots of poison peddlers these days, the climate doom-and-gloomers are just one flavor.

When governments worldwide accept that climate change is doing avoidable harm, it is the ostriches who not only bury their heads in the sand but also ask of others to do so that peddle poison.

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#49
post #3

Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.

Personally, I'd like to see a financial market develop that allows people to predict future global temperatures in short, mid and long term time frames. (let's say 5 years, 10 years, 30 years). That market would reveal humanities unbiased view of climate change predictions. It would give us a great tool to put things in perspective.

Will that truly be undistorted? At the levels of scale in the energy sector, there might be a profitable incentive to distort the market. Use FUD against the issuers so that most would not care to invest, then manipulate whatever is left.

Re: Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

#50
post #45

Ah, hyperbolic climate doom - literal doom - the religion of the wealthy and paranoid. The left keeps pushing the narrative of never-ending and accelerating misery, while everything keeps getting better. There are lots of poison peddlers these days, the climate doom-and-gloomers are just one flavor.

When governments worldwide accept that climate change is doing avoidable harm, it is the ostriches who not only bury their heads in the sand but also ask of others to do so that peddle poison.

I wouldn't pay much mind to the public positions of governments, particularly when there's money on the line. Nothing is simple in geopolitics.
Post reply on HN