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

It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

noaa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 578 posts

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#561

Post by bena »

User23 wrote: post #502
bena wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, your talking but saying nothing. Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors. "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. That's what makes your logic bad. You've replaced it with tautologies. Bad is…

> See, your talking but saying nothing. You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary. > "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealot…

"As demonstrated by your demonstrated inability"

I made a simple typo. You can choose to focus on that rather than any substance. It only continues to highlight your unwillingness to engage in good faith. You apparently think saying a lot of words means you're saying a lot.

Just like your obsession with the word "interlocutor". Always use the five dollar word when possible, I guess.

I don't think it's a magic I win button. It is, ironically enough, what it is. Saying something is itself doesn't add to a conversation. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

You think accusing the other side of not using logic is some sort of magic "I win" button however. What I did was basic inference. By noting that being downvoted is proof of zealotry, it stands to reason that zealots must be downvoting you more than the general population. Because if the general population is also downvoting you, then being downvoted can't be evidence of zealotry. You can't have it both ways. If being downvoted is proof of zealotry, then you must be accusing those downvoting you of being zealots. If you're explicitly not doing that and saying downvotes can be coming from anywhere, then being downvoted isn't proof of zealotry. That's basic logic that you're failing.

They were scare quotes. Because your premise is ridiculous. And the word is "your", it's not "you are claim", it is a claim that you are making. I like how you're so eager to jump on any little thing at all, that you over-corrected and made the same mistake yourself.

I mean, no discussion with you is going to satisfy anyone. Unless you're satisfying yourself with your own mental mastubatory fantasy that you're destroying people with "reason and logic".

You still haven't actually responded to anything of substance. You just go on, incorrectly, about what is and is not logic and fail to do the very basic thing asked of you: What, to you, is a climate zealot? Without using the word zealot, without saying it's obvious, or any other dodge. You aren't as opaque as you think you are.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#562

Post by bena »

imoverclocked wrote: post #493
bena wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because people are skeptical of the source of his skepticism. They believe he is being disingenuous and trying to couch his position in something that will excuse his behavior. They're also pointing out the core inconsistency in his logic. He claims his basis for climate skepticism was that politicians said it and politicians lie. But others pointed out that there were always politicians on both sides of…

I can't speak for api's intentions but I think the point is that scientists are people too. The perception of scientists themselves as being politically bent in one direction is definitely not unfathomable. This is especially so in a culture (or sub-culture) of politicians/news that may portray them that way for political gain. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what information sources we will put money be…

But he originally assigned his viewpoint to politicians and when people pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, he shifted.

But once again, his reasoning is suspect. He claims scientists are of a certain political bent.

His reason for believing they are of a political bent is the alarm they are raising over climate. Which he doesn't trust because of some politicians making an issue of it.

Don't you see how that's circular? He can't use scientists claim of climate change as evidence of their political bent and then use a perceived political bent as to why he shouldn't trust their judgment on climate.

If you wanted to do read in that way, that's a thing, but they also say in their introduction to "Advancing Our Understanding":

> Global climate change moved to the forefront of the international agenda even before the recent growing confidence that a significant part of the observed global climate change can be attributed to human activities. Governments have agreed on the Climate Convention owing to the plausibility of the scientific arguments and measurements showing significant increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global climate models have been used to project how the climate might change, based on plausible scenarios of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases through the next century.

Which is an acknowledgement that it is happening.

And let's not forget Exxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). Who accepted it as fact in the 80s and then actively worked to delay acceptance of it.

So you have to see why it would be difficult to get people fully on board when you have a billion dollar corporation working against you. I mean, api wants to bemoan those darn lying politicians, but Exxon has a very obvious and vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and anything that would cause people to cut back is something they would have motive to fight. But he doesn't mention any oil or gas company at all, does he? For some reason, their objection to climate change doesn't raise one red flag for him at all.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#563

Post by jokoon »

linuxhansl wrote: post #303

Imagine an asteroid would be on trajectory to collide with earth in (say) 2025. Possible order of hypothetical events: 1. Scientist discover the asteroid. Calculate risk of collision. 2. Asteroid comes closer, probability of impact is calculated as high. 3. People will start saying that we cannot let our economy be controlled by the specter of an asteroid. 4. The asteroid becomes visible. You can see it with your bar…

I don't like this analogy.

You can show a picture of an asteroid, but you can't really explain the greenhouse effect to consumers and voters.

It's easy to take action against an asteroid, but fighting CO2 emissions is far trickier.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#564

Post by paulddraper »

paulddraper wrote: post #162
SigmundA wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the deniers I know have shifted from it doesn't exist to either its not man made and just a natural cycle or it may actually be a good thing because plants like CO2 and warmth...

Yes. So now, if you doubt any of (1) it's man made (2) it's terrible (3) it's fixable, you're a "climate change denier."

Where's the error?

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#565

Post by imoverclocked »

bena wrote: post #562
imoverclocked wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for api's intentions but I think the point is that scientists are people too. The perception of scientists themselves as being politically bent in one direction is definitely not unfathomable. This is especially so in a culture (or sub-culture) of politicians/news that may portray them that way for political gain. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what information sources we will put money be…

But he originally assigned his viewpoint to politicians and when people pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, he shifted. But once again, his reasoning is suspect. He claims scientists are of a certain political bent. His reason for believing they are of a political bent is the alarm they are raising over climate. Which he doesn't trust because of some politicians making an issue of it. Don't you see how that's circ…

I think all three of us see this in hindsight. Ultimately, Exxon influenced politics to keep its business model. Politicians then amplified pieces of rhetoric (eg: the piece I pointed out) for their own gain. I would bet that very few people (especially the general public) read that original report in its entirety.

What's more important to me personally in this thread is not “a single person was not always thinking the correct things” but rather, “what lead them to think things counter to established/semi-established science?” All of us are prone to misinformation. By understanding biases we can potentially improve ourselves.

I tend to hold the same thumb-in-the-air view that anytime we think we absolutely know something is true, we are probably missing something fundamental. This is just another way of saying that reality (especially political reality) is almost always more nuanced than “x is good” or “y is bad.”

Finally, the human condition is quite messy. We all operate on partial knowledge of the world. There is no way for any of us to spend enough time+energy to really focus on or even fully grasp all the large and simultaneous issues in the world. It’s why we have organizations that go out and try to boil the problems down for us based on interviews and primary sources. Various governments also have these same kinds of organizations that operate independently and are tailored to help make policy decisions.

My point: it’s possible to quickly analyze our limited sources of information and come to wrong conclusions. api openly accepts that his conclusion changed and speaks about where he thinks he went wrong. In this light, down voting based on his internal experience seems… odd.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#566

Post by pyrale »

syops wrote: post #492
pyrale wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of discourse is simply disregarding facts to promote a not-my-problem ideology. The countries that contribute most significantly to greenhouse gas emissions almost always have very low demography. Because of that, if we were to change demography to reach strict population equilibrium in every country without changing countries' emissions per capita, we would actually emit more greenhouse gases.

What facts am I disregarding? As global poverty declines consumption correspondingly goes up. Globalization ensures that the message of consumption wins out. Profits need to be had. Humans are local optimization machines. The only real solution given human psychology is for there to be far fewer people. Until that happens the damage will continue to be done and at an increasing rate.

> The only real solution given human psychology is for there to be far fewer people.

The issue is that even with far fewer people, the emissions for developed countries aren't going to work out.

That is why the population control message is simply deflecting from the actual problem towards population which are for the most part way under the recommended emissions per capita considering the current world's population.

How hard is it to fix your own problems before you try to tell other people what they should do?

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#567

Post by noobly »

addandsubtract wrote: post #549
noobly wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair, you can't see curvature with your own eyes like you can an asteroid, at least not feasibly/easily. Your ancestors lived in a world where thinking it was round was stupid..

Would you be able to see an asteroid heading straight for the south pole if you're living in the northern hemisphere?

Given that the earth is constantly moving around the sun, probably? e.g, when the asteroid is really far away, like years, but still on track to hit the South Pole at some time, it could be viewable. But if the earth was stationary, then no, probably not.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#568

Post by noobly »

eloff wrote: post #560
noobly wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations Yeah, models are known to fail and I was under the impression this contributes to consensus heavily. Thanks for the links, I'll read these tonight!

This is one of those rare few times where I feel I did not waste my time disagreeing with someone on HN. I like your attitude towards things you don't understand.

Thanks! Yeah it's all too easy to lump people into stubborn camps, especially on the internet, but I appreciate you not dismissing me. I like nature as much as the next guy, but I'm just naturally a bit skeptical and that can come off as entrenched in some contrary viewpoint I guess.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#570

Post by User23 »

bena wrote: post #561
User23 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See, your talking but saying nothing. You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary. > "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealot…

"As demonstrated by your demonstrated inability" I made a simple typo. You can choose to focus on that rather than any substance. It only continues to highlight your unwillingness to engage in good faith. You apparently think saying a lot of words means you're saying a lot. Just like your obsession with the word "interlocutor". Always use the five dollar word when possible, I guess. I don't think it's a magic I win b…

> gamma posturing

I’ll own my erroneous correction. Its only fair to recognize the exceptional, for you, achievement of making a valid constructive criticism, however trivial.

However your reasoning is otherwise so fallacious I don’t think it’s worth trying to go through the errors. Suffice to say that what you are claiming are inferences are actually, charitably construed, at best enthymemes with a dishonest unstated leg. I’m pleased you don’t find me opaque since I didn’t intend to be and thus I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to identify specific examples, since I don’t see any point in spelling it out further.

Post reply on HN