4 ms·

Another climate change story on HN where the top comment is a denier citing logical fallacies about how statistics and science work. :( As crass as it may soun

by cryptoz 11y ago

Another climate change story on HN where the top comment is a denier citing logical fallacies about how statistics and science work. :( As crass as it may sound, I really wish Hacker News would talk about all the money that can be made by building startups that aim at mitigating the effects of climate change, about the routes to renewable, sustainable energy sources (also worth untold trillions of dollars), etc. Instead, HN seems to mostly be composed of climate change deniers. ------------- Edit: HN tells me I'm not allowed to reply to rsync's comment below. Here's my reply: > You don't have to be a "denier" to be annoyed by hearing that the "most (X) ever" is based on ~150 years of observations. The post author was not expressing annoyance. They expressed that the climate is not changing due to human activity: > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. That is not "a reasonable comment and a reasonable sentiment." It's an extremely damaging falsehood that does not have a place here on HN.

actionwords 11y ago
'anyone who says anything contrary to my point of view shouldn't be able to put their opinion forward!'
- cryptoz 11y ago
  Who are you quoting there? Certainly not me. I merely said that I'm sad. Not that certain people should be banned from speaking. Also, the reality of climate change isn't a "point of view" any more than saying that "the earth orbits the sun" is a point of view.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    Well, technically, "the earth orbits the sun" is precisely nothing more than a "point of view" (or a choice of reference frame, if you wish). The laws of physics tell us it's an arbitrary (though very convenient) choice, and you are free to make any other choice you like, such as "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth". Poor analogy, I guess?
    - VikingCoder 11y ago
      Actually, it IS more than that, because it fits the current models better, and the current models have remarkable predictive power. Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power.
      - dsp1234 11y ago
        Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power. Not a geocentrist myself, but it did have good predictive power. "To summarize, Ptolemy devised a system that was compatible with Aristotelian philosophy and managed to track actual observations and predict future movement mostly to within the limits of the next 1000 years of observations. The observed motions and his mechanisms for explaining them include:"[0] Obviously not as good as current models, but it's a bit of historical rewriting to say that geocentrism wasn't a good model for the time, which is one part of why there was push back for heliocentrism. With the tools of the time, the heliocentric model had similar predictive power. Geocentrism at the time wasn't just about god, it actually had predictive power. "He also argued that his system was more elegant than the traditional geocentric system. However, the predictive power of his model was not substantially better than its competition."[1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model [1] - http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html
        VikingCoder 11y ago
        Those models predicted the orbits of the planets because they had been fitted precisely to them - and explained only them; but the models did not and could not predict anything else about gravity, or the motions of other bodies. Had Jupiter's moons been visible to them, their motion would have confounded their model entirely. Also, "The change from circular orbits to elliptical planetary paths dramatically improved the accuracy of celestial observations and predictions." Your own link says the predictive power was "dramatically improved."
    - Etzos 11y ago
zxcvvcxz 11y ago
Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't just call someone out like that without having some substance in your post. Plus, it would help undecided people like myself have more data points and logical arguments to consider on both sides.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  Sure. > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of temperature rise we are seeing right now are not to be expected based on our last ice age receding. The fallacy here is "made shit up and pretended it was truth". > Also, the "record" in this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old The record is a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to how we act today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant. > so to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. Nobody is making that generalization, or using that scale of evidence. This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that they (Weather Underground) used .00000000028% of available evidence to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false.
  - James001 11y ago
    Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words. Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have. Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
    - soundwave106 11y ago
rsync 11y ago
"Another climate change story on HN where the top comment is a denier citing logical fallacies about how statistics and science work." You don't have to be a "denier" to be annoyed by hearing that the "most (X) ever" is based on ~150 years of observations. Plenty of well meaning, properly liberal, progressive thinkers that you would (presumably) approve of are also annoyed by this. It's a reasonable comment and a reasonable sentiment. Don't let your emotional attachment to the "us vs. them" narrative or your addiction to righteous indignation blind you to the simple (and obvious, non-controversial) objection (the parent) has.
joshuaheard 11y ago
I'm not denying anything. I accept the data which says global warming is occurring. I accept the IPCC report which says humans "likely" have a small, but statistically significant, effect on global warming. My point is that, on the geologic time scale, 100 years of temperature records are meaningless, and these media stories are really designed to cause fear. The fact is we are well within natural long term temperature variations. One poster says it's the rate of temperature growth that is important. Agreed, however, that is not in the article. What really disturbs me is your use of the pejorative "denier". Is a denier anyone who is skeptical of your dogma? Galileo was a heretical "denier" for his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system. Denying a theory is a necessary step in the scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

by cryptoz 11y ago

actionwords 11y ago

'anyone who says anything contrary to my point of view shouldn't be able to put their opinion forward!'

cryptoz 11y ago
Who are you quoting there? Certainly not me. I merely said that I'm sad. Not that certain people should be banned from speaking. Also, the reality of climate change isn't a "point of view" any more than saying that "the earth orbits the sun" is a point of view.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Well, technically, "the earth orbits the sun" is precisely nothing more than a "point of view" (or a choice of reference frame, if you wish). The laws of physics tell us it's an arbitrary (though very convenient) choice, and you are free to make any other choice you like, such as "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth". Poor analogy, I guess?
  - VikingCoder 11y ago
    Actually, it IS more than that, because it fits the current models better, and the current models have remarkable predictive power. Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      Whereas "the sun and the planets all orbit the earth" has astonishingly little predictive power. Not a geocentrist myself, but it did have good predictive power. "To summarize, Ptolemy devised a system that was compatible with Aristotelian philosophy and managed to track actual observations and predict future movement mostly to within the limits of the next 1000 years of observations. The observed motions and his mechanisms for explaining them include:"[0] Obviously not as good as current models, but it's a bit of historical rewriting to say that geocentrism wasn't a good model for the time, which is one part of why there was push back for heliocentrism. With the tools of the time, the heliocentric model had similar predictive power. Geocentrism at the time wasn't just about god, it actually had predictive power. "He also argued that his system was more elegant than the traditional geocentric system. However, the predictive power of his model was not substantially better than its competition."[1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model [1] - http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week04.html
      - VikingCoder 11y ago
        Those models predicted the orbits of the planets because they had been fitted precisely to them - and explained only them; but the models did not and could not predict anything else about gravity, or the motions of other bodies. Had Jupiter's moons been visible to them, their motion would have confounded their model entirely. Also, "The change from circular orbits to elliptical planetary paths dramatically improved the accuracy of celestial observations and predictions." Your own link says the predictive power was "dramatically improved."
  - Etzos 11y ago

zxcvvcxz 11y ago

Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't just call someone out like that without having some substance in your post. Plus, it would help undecided people like myself have more data points and logical arguments to consider on both sides.

cryptoz 11y ago
Sure. > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of temperature rise we are seeing right now are not to be expected based on our last ice age receding. The fallacy here is "made shit up and pretended it was truth". > Also, the "record" in this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old The record is a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to how we act today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant. > so to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. Nobody is making that generalization, or using that scale of evidence. This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that they (Weather Underground) used .00000000028% of available evidence to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false.
- James001 11y ago
  Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words. Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have. Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
  - soundwave106 11y ago

rsync 11y ago

"Another climate change story on HN where the top comment is a denier citing logical fallacies about how statistics and science work." You don't have to be a "denier" to be annoyed by hearing that the "most (X) ever" is based on ~150 years of observations. Plenty of well meaning, properly liberal, progressive thinkers that you would (presumably) approve of are also annoyed by this. It's a reasonable comment and a reasonable sentiment. Don't let your emotional attachment to the "us vs. them" narrative or your addiction to righteous indignation blind you to the simple (and obvious, non-controversial) objection (the parent) has.

joshuaheard 11y ago

I'm not denying anything. I accept the data which says global warming is occurring. I accept the IPCC report which says humans "likely" have a small, but statistically significant, effect on global warming. My point is that, on the geologic time scale, 100 years of temperature records are meaningless, and these media stories are really designed to cause fear. The fact is we are well within natural long term temperature variations. One poster says it's the rate of temperature growth that is important. Agreed, however, that is not in the article. What really disturbs me is your use of the pejorative "denier". Is a denier anyone who is skeptical of your dogma? Galileo was a heretical "denier" for his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system. Denying a theory is a necessary step in the scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method