3 ms·

Comments like this (and predictable moderation of my comment) are what makes this whole discussion a religion. You profoundly and completely missed the entire c

Comments like this (and predictable moderation of my comment) are what makes this whole discussion a religion. You profoundly and completely missed the entire context of my comment in your zeal to, you think, denounce anti-warming. It is tiring, pedestrian, and ignorant.

mikeash 11y ago
Maybe if you explained a little more, I could actually have a shot at understanding what you think the problem is.
- inversionOf 11y ago
  This new record high for the month beat the previous record from 17 years ago, to begin. Do you really think you want to understand? Again, the irrational histrionics of so many to this discussion (such as the conflation of billions of years with a period of time that is a tiny, tiny sliver of human history, much less periods of the Earth). It is impossible to discuss nuances without the predictable, boorish stomping of feet and announcing of positions. People must make everyone know how firmly and strongly they believe in global warming. And the funny thing is that I fully and completely believe in and understand AGW. It isn't a religion, however, and I'm not waving a flag or announcing fealty, or angrily posting over the top responses to anything that is other than full-fledged Belief. It is the most toxic, bottom-feeding discussion going.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I don't understand what the fact that the previous record was 17 years prior has to do with my response, or your response to my response. You're right, the discussion is mostly awful. Climate change has been turned into a political issue, and awful discussion is a predictable result of that. On the other hand, I don't see how your comment improves that any.
    - inversionOf 11y ago
      Conflating six heads in a row with a periodic new record is unproductive. For any given area of the country we generally have several record highs per year, and record lows per year, and have every single year since 1880. That's the nature of having a very small period of records. People acting outraged about a simple statement of fact like "since 1880", or the notional, obvious statement that a sporadic high or low is, by itself, not compelling, diminishes everyone.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Daily records at a point are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that points set multiple daily records per year has no bearing whatsoever on the significance, or lack thereof, of a monthly, global record. You're right of course, that a single record high is not compelling. Even when it's a global, monthly record high. My point in my original reply is that pointing this out is irrelevant and annoying. Was your point merely that this data point, by itself, is not compelling? If so, my original comment, which you complained about missing the point, was exactly about that. Was it something else? If so, I'm having a seriously tough time figuring out what your point is supposed to be.
        inversionOf 11y ago
        The fact that points set multiple daily records per year has no bearing whatsoever on the significance, or lack thereof, of a monthly, global record. Exactly the same principle applies. Look at the title of this submission. Stop and before you knee-jerk a response, contemplate that this isn't "it's hot, yo, and getting hotter". It is specifically that July was the hottest month "ever recorded", which someone quite rightfully noted was since 1880.
        dang 11y ago
        > before you knee-jerk a response > zealots such as yourself Stuff like this breaks the HN guidelines, and there is much of it in your comments. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, even when others are wrong. In fact, especially when others are wrong.

mikeash 11y ago

Maybe if you explained a little more, I could actually have a shot at understanding what you think the problem is.

inversionOf 11y ago
This new record high for the month beat the previous record from 17 years ago, to begin. Do you really think you want to understand? Again, the irrational histrionics of so many to this discussion (such as the conflation of billions of years with a period of time that is a tiny, tiny sliver of human history, much less periods of the Earth). It is impossible to discuss nuances without the predictable, boorish stomping of feet and announcing of positions. People must make everyone know how firmly and strongly they believe in global warming. And the funny thing is that I fully and completely believe in and understand AGW. It isn't a religion, however, and I'm not waving a flag or announcing fealty, or angrily posting over the top responses to anything that is other than full-fledged Belief. It is the most toxic, bottom-feeding discussion going.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't understand what the fact that the previous record was 17 years prior has to do with my response, or your response to my response. You're right, the discussion is mostly awful. Climate change has been turned into a political issue, and awful discussion is a predictable result of that. On the other hand, I don't see how your comment improves that any.
  - inversionOf 11y ago
    Conflating six heads in a row with a periodic new record is unproductive. For any given area of the country we generally have several record highs per year, and record lows per year, and have every single year since 1880. That's the nature of having a very small period of records. People acting outraged about a simple statement of fact like "since 1880", or the notional, obvious statement that a sporadic high or low is, by itself, not compelling, diminishes everyone.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Daily records at a point are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that points set multiple daily records per year has no bearing whatsoever on the significance, or lack thereof, of a monthly, global record. You're right of course, that a single record high is not compelling. Even when it's a global, monthly record high. My point in my original reply is that pointing this out is irrelevant and annoying. Was your point merely that this data point, by itself, is not compelling? If so, my original comment, which you complained about missing the point, was exactly about that. Was it something else? If so, I'm having a seriously tough time figuring out what your point is supposed to be.
      - inversionOf 11y ago
        The fact that points set multiple daily records per year has no bearing whatsoever on the significance, or lack thereof, of a monthly, global record. Exactly the same principle applies. Look at the title of this submission. Stop and before you knee-jerk a response, contemplate that this isn't "it's hot, yo, and getting hotter". It is specifically that July was the hottest month "ever recorded", which someone quite rightfully noted was since 1880.
        dang 11y ago
        > before you knee-jerk a response > zealots such as yourself Stuff like this breaks the HN guidelines, and there is much of it in your comments. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, even when others are wrong. In fact, especially when others are wrong.