4 ms·

<quote>I'm guessing that most people on hacker news have pre-existing opinions on both of those issues in favour of the scientist; while for climate science it'

<quote>I'm guessing that most people on hacker news have pre-existing opinions on both of those issues in favour of the scientist; while for climate science it's significantly more split.</quote> I'm not sure this is true. There is currently an energetic astro-turfing campaign under way on HN and other social media sites that makes the denier community look larger than it really is, certainly among the more educated population that you expect to find on HN. If creationists start taking a similar interest in HN, you'll come to think that there are a lot of creationists here too.

tdoggette 17y ago
What evidence is there of widespread astroturfing on climate change, specifically on HN?
- jbooth 17y ago
  I'd call it more of an enthusiasm gap than astroturfing. Most of us understand that the temperature is in fact rising, ice is in fact melting in record quantities most summers, and ocean acidification is indeed happening. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Those are all facts. If you think they aren't, re-check your facts. What's up for debate is how much CO2 is affecting the rising temperature. The so-called "skeptics" don't seem to be honing in on this, they're attempting broad brush methods to tar the facts and the uncertainties alike. So most of us don't bother to engage with those idiots. And you get what looks like astroturfing when in fact it's just a case of being louder.
- vannevar 17y ago
  If you look at the recent rash of posts on climate change, you see some patterns: - The posts tend to focus on the idea of conspiracy rather than on climate science. - The articles posted tend to be from fringe sources, or popular news sources that skim the technical details - The postings tend to cluster, with frequent posts that are nearly duplicate. People posting out of honest interest on HN tend to focus on the technical and scientific; not always, of course, but you'd expect to see more technical posts than conspiracy posts on climate change, and that's not what we're seeing. They also generally post articles from scientific or technical sources: after all, if we just wanted to read nontechnical news, we'd look elsewhere. Finally, bona fide posters generally avoid posting duplicates---again, not always, but astroturfed posts naturally tend toward duplication because the whole point is to keep the topic in view at all times. Given the sustained presence of all of these warning signs, I think it's safe to say there's some astroturfing going on here.
crux_ 17y ago
Sort of like when Stormfront invaded reddit? ;) I don't think so. People with a libertarian mindset, which is plenty consistent with a community of mostly US-based entrepreneurs, would naturally find the policy recommendations that follow from climate science being true to be very much against their principles; it's only natural that scepticism of that science would be given heavier weight.
- vannevar 17y ago
  It's not the scepticism that suggests astroturfing; rather, it's the nature of the posts and comments. See my response above. Simply arguing against AGW doesn't make one an astroturfer: repeatedly posting nontechnical articles in order to further a political agenda makes one an astroturfer.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Aren't you overestimating the political importance of HN a little bit if you speak of an astro-turfing compaign? Speaking for myself, I can tell you what made me a skeptic but by no means a denier and by no means a follower of anyone's campaign. It's the certainty in a context that doesn't allow for certainty. There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in advance. Not just the biology but also the economics and the sociology. The costs of climate change over 50 years. Stuff like that. I know a thing or two about scientific methods, but I have never heard of a method that even claims to be able to make such predictions with any kind of certainty. And I don't know of a single instance in the history of mankind when such long term predictions have ever been reasonably accurate. So in a situation that has uncertainty written all over it I'm faced with a massive, emotionally charged, almost hysterical, political and media campaign that yells CERTAINTY at me and comes with that kind of moral righteousness that I'm very suspicious of in any context. I guess that makes me a denier of sorts. A denier of certainty.
- vannevar 17y ago
  <quote>There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in advance.</quote> That may be, but very few of them are climatologists. If you take the time to read papers and articles by actual researchers in the field, you will find that they are careful to caution about making specific predictions about conditions in any given timeframe or area. They can make some general predictions based on past observations, however, and it's clear that global warming will bring about some drastic changes in local climates. Consequently it's wise public policy to try to mitigate the warming by reducing CO2 production. Is the scientific community 100% certain? No---as a 'denier of certainty', you're in good company. But you don't require certainty in your own life to make decisions (at least, I hope not for your sake). With the stakes so high, it's best to base action on the most likely scenario, and that is that global warming is caused primarily by human CO2 production.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    I guess it depends on the extent of uncertainty. The issue I see is that at any given time we face a rather large number of uncertain dangers. Doing something about them costs resources and we cannot deal with all of them equally. There are opportunities as well, which also cost resources. So it's all about priorities. I think it's a very difficult decision problem. Do you try to prevent a very uncertain but potentially grave danger proactively, or do you use your resources where you can be reasonably certain about the effects of your actions? I don't know. It's a balancing act. I tend to lean on the side of not wasting too many resources on very uncertain future dangers. That said, changing something about how we produce and use energy makes sense for many reasons, not just climate change. So I'm willing to act in spite of the uncertainty, but I'm unwilling to ct radically or accept the kind of moral de-industrialisation and de-globalisation mandate that some global warming advocates are pushing so hard.
pg 17y ago
I've noticed no suspicious patterns. The users who comment on stories about climate change are the same ones who comment on other stories.

tdoggette 17y ago

What evidence is there of widespread astroturfing on climate change, specifically on HN?

jbooth 17y ago
I'd call it more of an enthusiasm gap than astroturfing. Most of us understand that the temperature is in fact rising, ice is in fact melting in record quantities most summers, and ocean acidification is indeed happening. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Those are all facts. If you think they aren't, re-check your facts. What's up for debate is how much CO2 is affecting the rising temperature. The so-called "skeptics" don't seem to be honing in on this, they're attempting broad brush methods to tar the facts and the uncertainties alike. So most of us don't bother to engage with those idiots. And you get what looks like astroturfing when in fact it's just a case of being louder.
vannevar 17y ago
If you look at the recent rash of posts on climate change, you see some patterns: - The posts tend to focus on the idea of conspiracy rather than on climate science. - The articles posted tend to be from fringe sources, or popular news sources that skim the technical details - The postings tend to cluster, with frequent posts that are nearly duplicate. People posting out of honest interest on HN tend to focus on the technical and scientific; not always, of course, but you'd expect to see more technical posts than conspiracy posts on climate change, and that's not what we're seeing. They also generally post articles from scientific or technical sources: after all, if we just wanted to read nontechnical news, we'd look elsewhere. Finally, bona fide posters generally avoid posting duplicates---again, not always, but astroturfed posts naturally tend toward duplication because the whole point is to keep the topic in view at all times. Given the sustained presence of all of these warning signs, I think it's safe to say there's some astroturfing going on here.

crux_ 17y ago

Sort of like when Stormfront invaded reddit? ;) I don't think so. People with a libertarian mindset, which is plenty consistent with a community of mostly US-based entrepreneurs, would naturally find the policy recommendations that follow from climate science being true to be very much against their principles; it's only natural that scepticism of that science would be given heavier weight.

vannevar 17y ago
It's not the scepticism that suggests astroturfing; rather, it's the nature of the posts and comments. See my response above. Simply arguing against AGW doesn't make one an astroturfer: repeatedly posting nontechnical articles in order to further a political agenda makes one an astroturfer.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

Aren't you overestimating the political importance of HN a little bit if you speak of an astro-turfing compaign? Speaking for myself, I can tell you what made me a skeptic but by no means a denier and by no means a follower of anyone's campaign. It's the certainty in a context that doesn't allow for certainty. There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in advance. Not just the biology but also the economics and the sociology. The costs of climate change over 50 years. Stuff like that. I know a thing or two about scientific methods, but I have never heard of a method that even claims to be able to make such predictions with any kind of certainty. And I don't know of a single instance in the history of mankind when such long term predictions have ever been reasonably accurate. So in a situation that has uncertainty written all over it I'm faced with a massive, emotionally charged, almost hysterical, political and media campaign that yells CERTAINTY at me and comes with that kind of moral righteousness that I'm very suspicious of in any context. I guess that makes me a denier of sorts. A denier of certainty.

vannevar 17y ago
<quote>There are scientists who claim to be able to predict the behaviour of a whole host of complex systems and their interaction for decades and centuries in advance.</quote> That may be, but very few of them are climatologists. If you take the time to read papers and articles by actual researchers in the field, you will find that they are careful to caution about making specific predictions about conditions in any given timeframe or area. They can make some general predictions based on past observations, however, and it's clear that global warming will bring about some drastic changes in local climates. Consequently it's wise public policy to try to mitigate the warming by reducing CO2 production. Is the scientific community 100% certain? No---as a 'denier of certainty', you're in good company. But you don't require certainty in your own life to make decisions (at least, I hope not for your sake). With the stakes so high, it's best to base action on the most likely scenario, and that is that global warming is caused primarily by human CO2 production.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I guess it depends on the extent of uncertainty. The issue I see is that at any given time we face a rather large number of uncertain dangers. Doing something about them costs resources and we cannot deal with all of them equally. There are opportunities as well, which also cost resources. So it's all about priorities. I think it's a very difficult decision problem. Do you try to prevent a very uncertain but potentially grave danger proactively, or do you use your resources where you can be reasonably certain about the effects of your actions? I don't know. It's a balancing act. I tend to lean on the side of not wasting too many resources on very uncertain future dangers. That said, changing something about how we produce and use energy makes sense for many reasons, not just climate change. So I'm willing to act in spite of the uncertainty, but I'm unwilling to ct radically or accept the kind of moral de-industrialisation and de-globalisation mandate that some global warming advocates are pushing so hard.

pg 17y ago

I've noticed no suspicious patterns. The users who comment on stories about climate change are the same ones who comment on other stories.