4 ms·

The article opens up with a debunked denialist canard... but it still makes front page. Why is HN a haven for climate change denialists these days?

dantheman 17y ago
How was that debunked? From my understanding the actual handling of it was almost as bad as it's original inclusion. From my understanding, which may be wrong, is that the number was pulled out of thin air. Later when this came to light I saw a lot of articles throw out the fact that other research showed that the glaciers may melt in 2350, which seemed disingenuous because it implies that the number was a typo and not just a complete fabrication. The majority of what constitutes "climate science" is not science, a scientist must bend over backwards to show the ways in which they may be wrong because they are after the truth. Climate science makes lots of claims that it cannot back up. How anyone thinks that they can understand multiple systems interacting that have different and extremely long and unobserved cycles is ridiculous. The data is not there for the claims that are being made, a lot of the claims are so general and into the future that their is no way to accurately test them. So what we have are a lot of people making predictions (this is good), from incomplete data (it's the best we have, this is also good), using models and simulations (good), but they do not disclose how fraught with errors everything is. Also, I wouldn't say anyone is a climate change denialist -- everyone knows the climate changes and continues to change. I'd say that those who truly have some understanding of complex systems respect how hard it is to understand them let alone predict their future states. Perhaps a lot of people on HN don't necessarily buy into the story because programmers create and work with complex systems on daily basis and realize how hard even their simple ones are. I also think skepticism is healthy.
teilo 17y ago
You evidently didn't read the article, then. Nowhere does it try to deny climate change. It's about the IPCC and politics.
- cgranade 17y ago
  It doesn't directly try to deny it, no, but it undermines the politics based on outright falsehoods spun with half-truths, then begs the question of how we can trust the science given political failures. That is at best a slimy tactic, and is one that the denialist movement has exploited again and again. So yes, I did read the article, and I stand by what I said.
crocowhile 17y ago
I was also wondering why I can read so much climate denialism bullshit on HN. It really beats me.
cperciva 17y ago
Why is HN a haven for climate change denialists these days? I haven't seen many climate change denialists here; I have, on the other hand, seen lots of climate change skeptics. These two are not at all the same thing. At my university, I know five faculty members -- a mathematician, a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, and an economist -- who have privately expressed the opinion that given the lack of scientific rigour demonstrated by climate change researchers, it is impossible to judge whether anthropogenic global warming exists. These are not oil industry patsies; nor are they conspiracy theorists. They are serious scientists (yes, even including the economist) with concerns about the scientific process. I don't think any of them would say that anthropogenic global warming does not exist; only that the research done so far is seriously lacking. Not all skeptics are denialists.
- cgranade 17y ago
  No, not all are. Just all but a vanishingly small number. For instance, the article takes the strategy of undermining climate science on a political basis then claiming it has no scientific credibility. This is a standard denialist tactic-- a true skeptic would be able to argue based on evidence, not what one would want to be true. Unfortunately, by publishing that article, the paper in question basically has declared that they have no interest in actually evaluating evidence and reporting on it.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
How has the opening sentence been debunked. Here's a quote from an article covering the IPCC's apology on the issue... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article699... So the IPCC admits that the "fact" was included due to a lapse on their part which is exactly what the article claims
- cgranade 17y ago
  They may have apologized for the inaccuracy, yes, but the article claims that the inaccuracy was included on purpose for political reasons. This is a claim that, at best, is completely unverifiable since the only citation for it comes from one Daily Mail article of a scientist who claims he was misquoted (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/daily_mail_invents_a_climate_c.php http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/daily_mail_inv...). This weak and debunked claim is then used to lead into more debunked claims about how the "Climategate" e-mails are representative of some deep crisis of credibility-- they aren't. There lots of good resources on why they aren't, including another link from Island of Doubt (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategate_virus_spreads.php http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategat...).
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    I think you're making my point in that unverifiable does not equal debunked. The heads of the IPCC have apologized but in that apology they are saying that the people who put that sentence in did so without doing proper due diligence which to me translates to "They knew this claim might not be true and put it in anyway" The article might take a leap by attributing their motives to politics (as opposed to say laziness) but since no one knows what the motivations were exactly you can't say any claim has been debunked. As for Climategate and Global Warming in general your position that not accepting man made Global Warming is some how denialism or uninformed is just as ignorant as those who claim it's absolutely wrong. People like Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology at MIT) have documented political pressure put on scientists to conform so that does exist and it does cause many to doubt the credibility of the research.
1010011010 17y ago
You must be one of those "IPCC Chumps".

dantheman 17y ago

How was that debunked? From my understanding the actual handling of it was almost as bad as it's original inclusion. From my understanding, which may be wrong, is that the number was pulled out of thin air. Later when this came to light I saw a lot of articles throw out the fact that other research showed that the glaciers may melt in 2350, which seemed disingenuous because it implies that the number was a typo and not just a complete fabrication. The majority of what constitutes "climate science" is not science, a scientist must bend over backwards to show the ways in which they may be wrong because they are after the truth. Climate science makes lots of claims that it cannot back up. How anyone thinks that they can understand multiple systems interacting that have different and extremely long and unobserved cycles is ridiculous. The data is not there for the claims that are being made, a lot of the claims are so general and into the future that their is no way to accurately test them. So what we have are a lot of people making predictions (this is good), from incomplete data (it's the best we have, this is also good), using models and simulations (good), but they do not disclose how fraught with errors everything is. Also, I wouldn't say anyone is a climate change denialist -- everyone knows the climate changes and continues to change. I'd say that those who truly have some understanding of complex systems respect how hard it is to understand them let alone predict their future states. Perhaps a lot of people on HN don't necessarily buy into the story because programmers create and work with complex systems on daily basis and realize how hard even their simple ones are. I also think skepticism is healthy.

teilo 17y ago

You evidently didn't read the article, then. Nowhere does it try to deny climate change. It's about the IPCC and politics.

cgranade 17y ago
It doesn't directly try to deny it, no, but it undermines the politics based on outright falsehoods spun with half-truths, then begs the question of how we can trust the science given political failures. That is at best a slimy tactic, and is one that the denialist movement has exploited again and again. So yes, I did read the article, and I stand by what I said.

crocowhile 17y ago

I was also wondering why I can read so much climate denialism bullshit on HN. It really beats me.

cperciva 17y ago

Why is HN a haven for climate change denialists these days? I haven't seen many climate change denialists here; I have, on the other hand, seen lots of climate change skeptics. These two are not at all the same thing. At my university, I know five faculty members -- a mathematician, a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, and an economist -- who have privately expressed the opinion that given the lack of scientific rigour demonstrated by climate change researchers, it is impossible to judge whether anthropogenic global warming exists. These are not oil industry patsies; nor are they conspiracy theorists. They are serious scientists (yes, even including the economist) with concerns about the scientific process. I don't think any of them would say that anthropogenic global warming does not exist; only that the research done so far is seriously lacking. Not all skeptics are denialists.

cgranade 17y ago
No, not all are. Just all but a vanishingly small number. For instance, the article takes the strategy of undermining climate science on a political basis then claiming it has no scientific credibility. This is a standard denialist tactic-- a true skeptic would be able to argue based on evidence, not what one would want to be true. Unfortunately, by publishing that article, the paper in question basically has declared that they have no interest in actually evaluating evidence and reporting on it.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

How has the opening sentence been debunked. Here's a quote from an article covering the IPCC's apology on the issue... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article699... So the IPCC admits that the "fact" was included due to a lapse on their part which is exactly what the article claims

cgranade 17y ago
They may have apologized for the inaccuracy, yes, but the article claims that the inaccuracy was included on purpose for political reasons. This is a claim that, at best, is completely unverifiable since the only citation for it comes from one Daily Mail article of a scientist who claims he was misquoted (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/daily_mail_invents_a_climate_c.php http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/daily_mail_inv...). This weak and debunked claim is then used to lead into more debunked claims about how the "Climategate" e-mails are representative of some deep crisis of credibility-- they aren't. There lots of good resources on why they aren't, including another link from Island of Doubt (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategate_virus_spreads.php http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategat...).
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  I think you're making my point in that unverifiable does not equal debunked. The heads of the IPCC have apologized but in that apology they are saying that the people who put that sentence in did so without doing proper due diligence which to me translates to "They knew this claim might not be true and put it in anyway" The article might take a leap by attributing their motives to politics (as opposed to say laziness) but since no one knows what the motivations were exactly you can't say any claim has been debunked. As for Climategate and Global Warming in general your position that not accepting man made Global Warming is some how denialism or uninformed is just as ignorant as those who claim it's absolutely wrong. People like Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology at MIT) have documented political pressure put on scientists to conform so that does exist and it does cause many to doubt the credibility of the research.

1010011010 17y ago

You must be one of those "IPCC Chumps".