4 ms·

Yes, I do label it denialism. Propagating myths like the ones azgolfer is propagating over at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125626 http://news.ycombinato

Yes, I do label it denialism. Propagating myths like the ones azgolfer is propagating over at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125626 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125626 shouldn't be called anything else. As I said elsewhere, I welcome real and substantive debate. What I abhor, and am loathe to see taking root at HN, is the utter and complete denial of the massive body of evidence demonstrating AGW. Rather than pointing out problems in an intelligent and thoughtful way, what I see taking hold here is a never-ending parade of unfounded and demonstrably false assertions in the support of the denialist position.

anamax 17y ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Phil Jones is backing away from that "massive body of evidence", As to its "mass", no one outside of the believer community has seen it. It's not reproducible. Every time someone checks something, the result is far less than originally claimed.
- patio11 17y ago
  Every time someone checks something, the result is far less than originally claimed. Statements like this make us look like rabid partisans who are incapable of acknowledging that any actual science is occurring, and will be used to dismiss us when we make claims which are factually well-founded. Let's keep to claims which we can make which are well-supported by the evidence: there is significant scientific uncertainty about the degree to which global warming is anthropogenic, the "consensus" has been oversold, the rigorous system of checks that we have been told existed has repeatedly failed in ways both subtle and obvious, and the costs of measures designed to address global warming are unknown but acknowledged to be very, very high. Incidentally, I would soft peddle one fact that I know but believe is inadvisable to say too loudly right now: the process of global warming science has been systematically compromised by politically motivated fraud. Twelve months ago, saying that around me would have drawn the same rebuke as above: don't say that, we don't have evidence for it, let's stick to what we can demonstrate. Then the "Climategate" emails came out. I don't care who you are or where you stand on this issue, threatening to destroy evidence to avoid it falling into the hands of researchers immediately pushes us waaaaaaaay into the "fraud" category. However, in terms of marketing, I'd say softpeddle that factually justifiable conclusion until we've shaken the apple tree a little more, and can present it as part of the pattern of behavior it appears to be, rather than "a regrettable incident from a single overworked, much put-upon scientist who might have contributed a few lines to a report which is 99.99% good science." Sadly, we're not likely to get any help from the U.S. mainstream media in shaking the apple tree, at least until I can think of a good hook for why climate fraud is Dubya's fault. Oh well.
yannis 17y ago
Your labeling everyone as denialist certainly does you disservice, if what you after is real and substantive debate. I submitted this study http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124236 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124236 yesterday and which did not attract much attention, being a weekend. The Study by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts provides 111 pages of counter arguments to the Climate Change hypothesis. I got interested in the Climate debate because as a Mechanical Engineer with a PhD, having specialized in Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics found it extremely difficult to accept that one could model the Atmosphere's heat balance to the point of accuracy required for such a debate. Consider a column of air in the atmosphere, the bottom end is at say a temperature of 14 deg C and the top end probably at -60 deg C, add different gases, plus water vapor - which in itself is a greenhouse gas, introduce more CO2 and other pollutants, account for the variability of the Sun's output and try and predict the surface temperature (a vaguely defined term in itself) and you will become skeptical. Even simpler thermal analyses for example that of a building's internal temperature cannot be performed to the required accuracy. I am also skeptical of the way the Carbon trade is being developed, but that is another story. I can be a skeptic on the Climate debate and an environmentalist on many other issues. These are issues that touch all of us and do belong to HN.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  I did see that post, started to skim it, but was uncomfortable with their tone. Page 4 Item 11: "systematic hyping." I realize you can't lay out your entire case by page 4, but I would have felt more comfortable with an indication of the basis for this term and that it will be proven to be systematic hyping. Page 5: "Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed how all the data centers, most notably NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than, in reality, they actually did." "Conspired" is possibly accurate, but a little jarring, especially when applied to "my" NASA; they gave us Tang, after all. A more specific reference or reminder, rather than a footnote to an entire report, would have been good here to soften the blow to someone who watched the Apollo 11 landing in my pajamas on my knees 18 inches from the TV. Page 5: "Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler." "They may have been working under the auspices ..." Were they? Weren't they? Some indication of why, beyond assumption, the authors think so would have been good, or a statement that this will be revealed later in the document. "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully ..." Then show it, or refer me to later in the document where you fulfill the promise that "it can be shown." "Purposefully" is also something that I need to have either proven, or a reference to where you're going to prove it or have seen it proved. I only intended to skim the document, but by the time I got here I felt a little uncomfortable at what I perceived as wild-eyedness. Everything I object to here may well be true, and may be proved later in the document, but without any indication that proof would be forthcoming it started to sound like so much hand waving. Speaking as a robust skeptic.
waterlesscloud 17y ago
Just so you know, when you use a pejorative label for those who disagree with you, some of us take you much less seriously.

anamax 17y ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Phil Jones is backing away from that "massive body of evidence", As to its "mass", no one outside of the believer community has seen it. It's not reproducible. Every time someone checks something, the result is far less than originally claimed.

patio11 17y ago
Every time someone checks something, the result is far less than originally claimed. Statements like this make us look like rabid partisans who are incapable of acknowledging that any actual science is occurring, and will be used to dismiss us when we make claims which are factually well-founded. Let's keep to claims which we can make which are well-supported by the evidence: there is significant scientific uncertainty about the degree to which global warming is anthropogenic, the "consensus" has been oversold, the rigorous system of checks that we have been told existed has repeatedly failed in ways both subtle and obvious, and the costs of measures designed to address global warming are unknown but acknowledged to be very, very high. Incidentally, I would soft peddle one fact that I know but believe is inadvisable to say too loudly right now: the process of global warming science has been systematically compromised by politically motivated fraud. Twelve months ago, saying that around me would have drawn the same rebuke as above: don't say that, we don't have evidence for it, let's stick to what we can demonstrate. Then the "Climategate" emails came out. I don't care who you are or where you stand on this issue, threatening to destroy evidence to avoid it falling into the hands of researchers immediately pushes us waaaaaaaay into the "fraud" category. However, in terms of marketing, I'd say softpeddle that factually justifiable conclusion until we've shaken the apple tree a little more, and can present it as part of the pattern of behavior it appears to be, rather than "a regrettable incident from a single overworked, much put-upon scientist who might have contributed a few lines to a report which is 99.99% good science." Sadly, we're not likely to get any help from the U.S. mainstream media in shaking the apple tree, at least until I can think of a good hook for why climate fraud is Dubya's fault. Oh well.

yannis 17y ago

Your labeling everyone as denialist certainly does you disservice, if what you after is real and substantive debate. I submitted this study http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124236 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124236 yesterday and which did not attract much attention, being a weekend. The Study by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts provides 111 pages of counter arguments to the Climate Change hypothesis. I got interested in the Climate debate because as a Mechanical Engineer with a PhD, having specialized in Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics found it extremely difficult to accept that one could model the Atmosphere's heat balance to the point of accuracy required for such a debate. Consider a column of air in the atmosphere, the bottom end is at say a temperature of 14 deg C and the top end probably at -60 deg C, add different gases, plus water vapor - which in itself is a greenhouse gas, introduce more CO2 and other pollutants, account for the variability of the Sun's output and try and predict the surface temperature (a vaguely defined term in itself) and you will become skeptical. Even simpler thermal analyses for example that of a building's internal temperature cannot be performed to the required accuracy. I am also skeptical of the way the Carbon trade is being developed, but that is another story. I can be a skeptic on the Climate debate and an environmentalist on many other issues. These are issues that touch all of us and do belong to HN.

nfnaaron 17y ago
I did see that post, started to skim it, but was uncomfortable with their tone. Page 4 Item 11: "systematic hyping." I realize you can't lay out your entire case by page 4, but I would have felt more comfortable with an indication of the basis for this term and that it will be proven to be systematic hyping. Page 5: "Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed how all the data centers, most notably NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than, in reality, they actually did." "Conspired" is possibly accurate, but a little jarring, especially when applied to "my" NASA; they gave us Tang, after all. A more specific reference or reminder, rather than a footnote to an entire report, would have been good here to soften the blow to someone who watched the Apollo 11 landing in my pajamas on my knees 18 inches from the TV. Page 5: "Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler." "They may have been working under the auspices ..." Were they? Weren't they? Some indication of why, beyond assumption, the authors think so would have been good, or a statement that this will be revealed later in the document. "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully ..." Then show it, or refer me to later in the document where you fulfill the promise that "it can be shown." "Purposefully" is also something that I need to have either proven, or a reference to where you're going to prove it or have seen it proved. I only intended to skim the document, but by the time I got here I felt a little uncomfortable at what I perceived as wild-eyedness. Everything I object to here may well be true, and may be proved later in the document, but without any indication that proof would be forthcoming it started to sound like so much hand waving. Speaking as a robust skeptic.

waterlesscloud 17y ago

Just so you know, when you use a pejorative label for those who disagree with you, some of us take you much less seriously.