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

What's Really Warming the World?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#511

Post by DanBC »

Zuider wrote: post #488
thaumaturgy wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem fallacy fallacy: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html Pointing out that someone is not trustworthy when considering whether or not to trust their conclusions is not ad-hom.

Attacking a persons 'trustworthiness' instead of dealing with their arguments and evidence is pretty much the dictionary definition of the ad-hominem diversion. It doesn't interest me to learn that he kicks cats or dresses in lingerie and calls himself Marjorie at the weekends. If you believe that he is wrong, then show where and how he is in error.

You're right not to be intersted in whether he kicks cats or not when you're thinking about whether he's honest or not.

But, when thinking about whether he's honest or not being given examples of previous dishonesty is relevant.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#512

Post by Zuider »

DanBC wrote: post #511
Zuider wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking a persons 'trustworthiness' instead of dealing with their arguments and evidence is pretty much the dictionary definition of the ad-hominem diversion. It doesn't interest me to learn that he kicks cats or dresses in lingerie and calls himself Marjorie at the weekends. If you believe that he is wrong, then show where and how he is in error.

You're right not to be intersted in whether he kicks cats or not when you're thinking about whether he's honest or not. But, when thinking about whether he's honest or not being given examples of previous dishonesty is relevant.

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 established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]."

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#513

Post by gnaritas »

paulhauggis wrote: post #452
gnaritas wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm just smarter than most climate scientists? You're really not, and your comments bear that out.

I can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that? I am a little older and more experienced, that might be it. But I shouldn't really be that surprised from a community that willingly rallies around ideas that continues to subjugate them. It puts me about 10 steps ahead of the majority of people. I don't need your acceptance.

> I can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that?

It isn't, you simply believe that it is; as the guy below said a clear case of Dunning Kruger, you are vastly overestimating your own intelligence. You've done nothing here but repeat plainly ignorant right wing propaganda that's not even smart enough to require disproving.

> I don't need your acceptance.

No you don't, ignorance kind of works that way.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#514

Post by gnaritas »

tosseraccount wrote: post #384
gnaritas wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. No it didn't. > Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. No it didn't. > Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. No it didn't. All of those are made up facts that bear no resemblance to reality. Science doesn't say or think things, it merely shows the current state of evidence for theories and when new evidence comes along, wrong theories ar…

Really? When homosexuality was mental illness : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/26/970357/-When-homose... Milky Way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_%28astronomy%29 Neutrinos: http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Historic-Dispu...

Yes really. That scientists had such debates proves my point, not yours. Science doesn't make absolute claims, it posits positions based on evidence and changes those positions when the evidence changes. Sadly, you're clearly not intelligent enough to understand the distinction.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#515

Post by Paradigma11 »

bildung wrote: post #304
tosseraccount wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. I'm curious. What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ? I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". [edit: nobody up to it ? ]

> I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". Proofs don't exist in sciences concerned with the physical world. For proofs to work in the real world, you'd need certainty that you have recognised and correctly measured every variable that could affect the outcome of an observation/experiment. The last philosophy of science that allowed proofs was positivism. For the natural sciences, it has been replaced by critic…

But the problem is that you need to be able to proof that your assumptions are correct to be able to falsify something.

I do think that CR is of rather limited value philosphically and practical.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#516

Post by cholantesh »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #505
cholantesh wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You think it doesn't matter that the primary author on a paper about climate science doesn't even have an undergraduate-level education in the subject? That the second one credited has a history of accepting large sums of money to write papers endorsing spurious claims DIRECTLY RELATING to climate change?

A lot of the IPCC lead authors are paid by NGO's (like Greenpeace) with a vested interest in climate alarmism. Do we discount their work too? Climate science covers a lot of different areas, everything from economics, through hard chemistry and fluid dynamics, to pure statistics. No one person can be an expert on all of this, and no one qualification will make anyone competent in all of them. Experts from related dis…

Greenpeace is a non-profit, so they have much less to gain from 'climate alarmism' than the fossil fuel industry does from climate denial.

Monkcton studied classics and received a post-grad diploma in journalism. That's pretty far removed from being a related discipline.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#517

Post by cholantesh »

Zuider wrote: post #496
cholantesh wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't libel the last time you brought it up and it isn't libel this time. Soon failed to disclose non-trivial amounts of funding that he received from parties who have a vested interest in deriding climate science. Given how often his work has failed to pass muster when scrutinized by climate scientists and skeptics, it is hard to fathom how any of this can amount tosimple incompetence.

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 is a non-sequitur in this regard.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#518

Post by thaumaturgy »

Zuider wrote: post #488
thaumaturgy wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem fallacy fallacy: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html Pointing out that someone is not trustworthy when considering whether or not to trust their conclusions is not ad-hom.

Attacking a persons 'trustworthiness' instead of dealing with their arguments and evidence is pretty much the dictionary definition of the ad-hominem diversion. It doesn't interest me to learn that he kicks cats or dresses in lingerie and calls himself Marjorie at the weekends. If you believe that he is wrong, then show where and how he is in error.

You inspired me to write a thing which will save me a lot of time in the future. Thank you.

http://www.robsheldon.com/tactics-of-crackpot-debate/#4

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#519

Post by cholantesh »

Zuider wrote: post #512
DanBC wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right not to be intersted in whether he kicks cats or not when you're thinking about whether he's honest or not. But, when thinking about whether he's honest or not being given examples of previous dishonesty is relevant.

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.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#520

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Tycho wrote: post #507
DanBC wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the ten hottest years have been since 1997?

This makes me think of when financial journalists/broadcasters constantly report that the SPX or the DJIA or the FTSE or whatever are hitting 'all time highs' and it's a really useless piece of information. Investors want to know how much it went up by on the day (and what he trend of the last few days/months has been), the fact that it poked through to a new high level is not important.

Except - temperature! It does actually matter if its 100 or 200 degrees.
Post reply on HN