5 ms·

One strategy would be to keep making up bigger and bigger claims, trying to scare people into action.

enraged_camel 10y ago
I love all you silly people who make alt accounts just to post unpopular comments. Like, what are you so afraid of? It's just karma.
- throwaway136373 10y ago
  Don't care about karma, I care about my career. I've seen several careers short circuited because they didn't tow the complete liberal orthodox line. Welcome to SF.
  - colemickens 10y ago
    "science agreed upon by a majority of scientists including more than two 9s" == "liberal orthodox line". I'm sure you have far better research, data and analytical ability than NASA and virtually every other scientific outfit on the planet.
    - throwaway136373 10y ago
      And scientists are never ever wrong in their predictions.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - theseadroid 10y ago
        And doctors are never ever wrong in their diagnosis. Or don't they? But you still go to doctors instead of diagnose yourself?
      - eagsalazar2 10y ago
        No one is saying that but at least, unlike you, scientists have attempted to make a case (as have several other people on this thread). I'm inclined to go with the people who've studied this subject, made arguments, were peer reviewed at least by each other, even with the reality of their human failings and biases.
      - jwatte 10y ago
        Does there exist, in your mind, any data that would make you think global warming is real and imminent? If so, what would that data look like?
      - yongjik 10y ago
        Nah, it's just that people generally don't like to work with someone who claims "Scientists are wrong," and when asked how he/she knows it, answers "Well, they've been wrong before!" Because who wants to argue with such a person in a design meeting?
  - eagsalazar2 10y ago
    You know you keep whining that it is just liberal orthodoxy and that you will be persecuted if you speak the truth but you should observe that you are the only one throwing insults and generalizations around in this conversation. Several people have made reasoned rebuttals to comments like this one and yet only you are saying "ooh poor me, liberal witch trials!".
  - jwatte 10y ago
    So, first, it's "toe the line," and second, toeing the line means stretching outside the defined limit. You may want to edit your post to make a coherent statement.
    - greenyoda 10y ago
      No, it means staying inside a defined limit (i.e., standing behind the metaphorical line): "Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning ... to conform to a rule or standard ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
- qpwoeirutyzzzz 10y ago
  All my accounts are throw-away accounts, I have no interest in maintaining some persistent identity on HN.
revscat 10y ago
This isn't "made up." It's a fact. Burning your head in the sand only dooms you and yours.
- throwaway136373 10y ago
  Predictions aren't facts.
  - ori_b 10y ago
    Hottest 7 months on record, by the largest margin on record, is not a prediction. It is a fact.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - function_seven 10y ago
    No, facts are facts. And the fact is that every prediction that has been made has underestimated the coming change. If I predict the DJIA will rise 50 pts every day next week, and it really goes up 100 pts, am I wrong? Sure, but not the way you think.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Snargorf 10y ago
      You seem to have it backwards, predictions that have been made have consistently overestimated climate change. Typically the real temperature change is at or below the bottom of their ranges. This is the "global warming pause" that they didn't predict and rushed to explain as unimportant. Don't you remember back 10-12 years ago when the ice caps were supposed to be almost gone by now? Haven't you noticed that no cities have actually been affected by any sea level change - that nothing has actually happened?
jwatte 10y ago
Have you read the linked research? Do you have a better explanation for the data? By all means, let us know!
theseadroid 10y ago
There is a post on reddit that address people like you. I'll post the link at the bottom but in the same time I'd like to read it again and quote it in full here: Throwaway for a real scientist here. I'd make my name, research area, and organization openly available, but the fact of the matter is that I don't like getting death threats. I'm a perpetual lurker, but I'm tired of looking through the nonsense that gets posted by a subset of the community on these types of posts. It's extremely predictable. Ten years ago, you were telling us that the climate wasn't changing. Five years ago, you were telling us that climate change wasn't anthropogenic in origin. Now, you're telling us that anthropogenic climate change might be real, but it's certainly not a bad thing. I'm pretty sure that five years from now you'll be admitting it's a bad thing, but saying that you have no obligation to mitigate the effects. You know why you're changing your story so often? It's because you guys are armchair quarterbacks scientists. You took some science classes in high school twenty years ago and you're pretty sure it must be mostly the same now. I mean, chemical reactions follow static laws and stuff, or something, right? Okay, you're rusty, but you read a few dozen blog posts each year. Maybe a book or two if you're feeling motivated. Certainly, you listen to the radio and that's plenty good enough. I'm sorry, but it's needs to be said: you're full of it. I'm at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu, sponsored by ASLO, TOS, and AGU. I was just at a tutorial session on the IPCC AR5 report a few days ago. The most recent IPCC report was prepared by ~300 scientists with the help of ~50 editors. These people reviewed over 9000 climate change articles to prepare their report, and their report received over 50,000 comments to improve it's quality and accuracy. I know you'll jump all over me for guesstimating these numbers, but I'm not going to waste more of my time looking it up. You can find the exact numbers if you really want them, and I know you argue just to be contrary. Let's be honest here. These climate change scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents' Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those aren't holidays. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without distractions. Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again... What's your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet? I'm a scientist that studies how ecological systems respond to climate change. I would never presume to tell a climate scientist that their models are crap. I just don't have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws. And that's fair, because they don't have the depth of knowledge in my area to point out my flaws. Yet, here we are, with deniers and apologists with orders of magnitude less scientific expertise, attempting to argue about climate change. I mean, there's so much nonsense here just from the ecology side of things: User /u/nixonrichard writes: Using the word "degradation" implies a value judgement on the condition of an environment. Is there any scientific proof that the existence of a mountaintop is superior to the absence of a mountain top? Your comment and sentiment smacks of naturalistic preference which is a value judgement on your part, and not any fundamental scientific principle. You know, like /u/nixonrichard thinks that's a profound thought or something. But it's nonsense, because there are scientists who do exactly that. Search "mountain ecosystem services" on Google Scholar and that won't even be the tip of the iceberg. Search "ecosystem services" if you want more of the iceberg. It's like /u/nixonrichard doesn't know that people study mountain ecosystems... or how to value ecosystems... or how to balance environmental and economic concerns... Yet, here /u/nixonrichard is, arguing about climate change. Another example. Look at /u/el__duderino with this pearl of wisdom: Climate change isn't inherently degradation. It is change. Change hurts some species, helps others, and over time creates new species. Again, someone who knows just enough about the climate debate to say something vaguely intelligent-sounding, but not enough to actually say something useful. One could search for review papers on the effects of climate change on ecological systems via Google Scholar, but it would be hard work actually reading one. TLDRs: 1) rapid environmental change hurts most species and that's why biodiversity is crashing; 2) rapid environmental change helps some species, but I didn't know you liked toxic algal blooms that much; 3) evolution can occur on rapid timescales, but it'll take millions of years for meaningful speciation to replace what we're losing in a matter of decades. But you know, I really pity people like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino. It must be hard taking your car to 100 mechanics before you get to one that tells you your brakes are working just fine. It must be hard going to 100 doctors before you find the one that tells you your cholesterol level is healthy. No, I'm just kidding. People like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino treat scientific disciplines as one of the few occupations where an advanced degree, decades of training, mathematical and statistical expertise, and terabytes of data are equivalent with a passing familiarity with right-wing or industry talking points. I'd like to leave you with two final thoughts. First, I know that many in this community are going to think, "okay, you might be right, but why do you need to be such an about it?" This isn't about intellectual elitism. This isn't about silencing dissent. This is about being fed up. The human race is on a long road trip and the deniers and apologists are the backseat drivers. They don't like how the road trip is going but, rather than help navigating, they're stuck kicking the driver's seat and complaining about how long things are taking. I'd kick them out of the car, but we're all locked in together. The best I can do is give them a whack on the side of the head. Second, I hope that anyone with a sincere interest in learning about climate change continues to ask questions. Asking critical questions is an important part of the learning process and the scientific endeavor and should always be encouraged. Just remember that "do mountaintops provide essential ecosystem services?" is a question and "mountaintop ecosystem services are not a fundamental scientific principle" is a ridiculous and uninformed statement. Questions are good, especially when they're critical. Statements of fact without citations or expertise is intellectual masturbation - just without the intellect. Toodles. I'm going to bed now so that I can listen to, look at, and talk about science for another 12 hours tomorrow. Have fun at the office. original post https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_worlds_most_prestigious_science/cfpy15c https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_...

I love all you silly people who make alt accounts just to post unpopular comments. Like, what are you so afraid of? It's just karma.

throwaway136373 10y ago
Don't care about karma, I care about my career. I've seen several careers short circuited because they didn't tow the complete liberal orthodox line. Welcome to SF.
- colemickens 10y ago
  "science agreed upon by a majority of scientists including more than two 9s" == "liberal orthodox line". I'm sure you have far better research, data and analytical ability than NASA and virtually every other scientific outfit on the planet.
  - throwaway136373 10y ago
    And scientists are never ever wrong in their predictions.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - theseadroid 10y ago
      And doctors are never ever wrong in their diagnosis. Or don't they? But you still go to doctors instead of diagnose yourself?
    - eagsalazar2 10y ago
      No one is saying that but at least, unlike you, scientists have attempted to make a case (as have several other people on this thread). I'm inclined to go with the people who've studied this subject, made arguments, were peer reviewed at least by each other, even with the reality of their human failings and biases.
    - jwatte 10y ago
      Does there exist, in your mind, any data that would make you think global warming is real and imminent? If so, what would that data look like?
    - yongjik 10y ago
      Nah, it's just that people generally don't like to work with someone who claims "Scientists are wrong," and when asked how he/she knows it, answers "Well, they've been wrong before!" Because who wants to argue with such a person in a design meeting?
- eagsalazar2 10y ago
  You know you keep whining that it is just liberal orthodoxy and that you will be persecuted if you speak the truth but you should observe that you are the only one throwing insults and generalizations around in this conversation. Several people have made reasoned rebuttals to comments like this one and yet only you are saying "ooh poor me, liberal witch trials!".
- jwatte 10y ago
  So, first, it's "toe the line," and second, toeing the line means stretching outside the defined limit. You may want to edit your post to make a coherent statement.
  - greenyoda 10y ago
    No, it means staying inside a defined limit (i.e., standing behind the metaphorical line): "Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning ... to conform to a rule or standard ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
qpwoeirutyzzzz 10y ago
All my accounts are throw-away accounts, I have no interest in maintaining some persistent identity on HN.

revscat 10y ago

This isn't "made up." It's a fact. Burning your head in the sand only dooms you and yours.

throwaway136373 10y ago
Predictions aren't facts.
- ori_b 10y ago
  Hottest 7 months on record, by the largest margin on record, is not a prediction. It is a fact.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- function_seven 10y ago
  No, facts are facts. And the fact is that every prediction that has been made has underestimated the coming change. If I predict the DJIA will rise 50 pts every day next week, and it really goes up 100 pts, am I wrong? Sure, but not the way you think.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Snargorf 10y ago
    You seem to have it backwards, predictions that have been made have consistently overestimated climate change. Typically the real temperature change is at or below the bottom of their ranges. This is the "global warming pause" that they didn't predict and rushed to explain as unimportant. Don't you remember back 10-12 years ago when the ice caps were supposed to be almost gone by now? Haven't you noticed that no cities have actually been affected by any sea level change - that nothing has actually happened?

jwatte 10y ago

Have you read the linked research? Do you have a better explanation for the data? By all means, let us know!

theseadroid 10y ago

There is a post on reddit that address people like you. I'll post the link at the bottom but in the same time I'd like to read it again and quote it in full here: Throwaway for a real scientist here. I'd make my name, research area, and organization openly available, but the fact of the matter is that I don't like getting death threats. I'm a perpetual lurker, but I'm tired of looking through the nonsense that gets posted by a subset of the community on these types of posts. It's extremely predictable. Ten years ago, you were telling us that the climate wasn't changing. Five years ago, you were telling us that climate change wasn't anthropogenic in origin. Now, you're telling us that anthropogenic climate change might be real, but it's certainly not a bad thing. I'm pretty sure that five years from now you'll be admitting it's a bad thing, but saying that you have no obligation to mitigate the effects. You know why you're changing your story so often? It's because you guys are armchair quarterbacks scientists. You took some science classes in high school twenty years ago and you're pretty sure it must be mostly the same now. I mean, chemical reactions follow static laws and stuff, or something, right? Okay, you're rusty, but you read a few dozen blog posts each year. Maybe a book or two if you're feeling motivated. Certainly, you listen to the radio and that's plenty good enough. I'm sorry, but it's needs to be said: you're full of it. I'm at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu, sponsored by ASLO, TOS, and AGU. I was just at a tutorial session on the IPCC AR5 report a few days ago. The most recent IPCC report was prepared by ~300 scientists with the help of ~50 editors. These people reviewed over 9000 climate change articles to prepare their report, and their report received over 50,000 comments to improve it's quality and accuracy. I know you'll jump all over me for guesstimating these numbers, but I'm not going to waste more of my time looking it up. You can find the exact numbers if you really want them, and I know you argue just to be contrary. Let's be honest here. These climate change scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents' Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those aren't holidays. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without distractions. Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again... What's your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet? I'm a scientist that studies how ecological systems respond to climate change. I would never presume to tell a climate scientist that their models are crap. I just don't have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws. And that's fair, because they don't have the depth of knowledge in my area to point out my flaws. Yet, here we are, with deniers and apologists with orders of magnitude less scientific expertise, attempting to argue about climate change. I mean, there's so much nonsense here just from the ecology side of things: User /u/nixonrichard writes: Using the word "degradation" implies a value judgement on the condition of an environment. Is there any scientific proof that the existence of a mountaintop is superior to the absence of a mountain top? Your comment and sentiment smacks of naturalistic preference which is a value judgement on your part, and not any fundamental scientific principle. You know, like /u/nixonrichard thinks that's a profound thought or something. But it's nonsense, because there are scientists who do exactly that. Search "mountain ecosystem services" on Google Scholar and that won't even be the tip of the iceberg. Search "ecosystem services" if you want more of the iceberg. It's like /u/nixonrichard doesn't know that people study mountain ecosystems... or how to value ecosystems... or how to balance environmental and economic concerns... Yet, here /u/nixonrichard is, arguing about climate change. Another example. Look at /u/el__duderino with this pearl of wisdom: Climate change isn't inherently degradation. It is change. Change hurts some species, helps others, and over time creates new species. Again, someone who knows just enough about the climate debate to say something vaguely intelligent-sounding, but not enough to actually say something useful. One could search for review papers on the effects of climate change on ecological systems via Google Scholar, but it would be hard work actually reading one. TLDRs: 1) rapid environmental change hurts most species and that's why biodiversity is crashing; 2) rapid environmental change helps some species, but I didn't know you liked toxic algal blooms that much; 3) evolution can occur on rapid timescales, but it'll take millions of years for meaningful speciation to replace what we're losing in a matter of decades. But you know, I really pity people like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino. It must be hard taking your car to 100 mechanics before you get to one that tells you your brakes are working just fine. It must be hard going to 100 doctors before you find the one that tells you your cholesterol level is healthy. No, I'm just kidding. People like /u/nixonrichard and /u/el__duderino treat scientific disciplines as one of the few occupations where an advanced degree, decades of training, mathematical and statistical expertise, and terabytes of data are equivalent with a passing familiarity with right-wing or industry talking points. I'd like to leave you with two final thoughts. First, I know that many in this community are going to think, "okay, you might be right, but why do you need to be such an about it?" This isn't about intellectual elitism. This isn't about silencing dissent. This is about being fed up. The human race is on a long road trip and the deniers and apologists are the backseat drivers. They don't like how the road trip is going but, rather than help navigating, they're stuck kicking the driver's seat and complaining about how long things are taking. I'd kick them out of the car, but we're all locked in together. The best I can do is give them a whack on the side of the head. Second, I hope that anyone with a sincere interest in learning about climate change continues to ask questions. Asking critical questions is an important part of the learning process and the scientific endeavor and should always be encouraged. Just remember that "do mountaintops provide essential ecosystem services?" is a question and "mountaintop ecosystem services are not a fundamental scientific principle" is a ridiculous and uninformed statement. Questions are good, especially when they're critical. Statements of fact without citations or expertise is intellectual masturbation - just without the intellect. Toodles. I'm going to bed now so that I can listen to, look at, and talk about science for another 12 hours tomorrow. Have fun at the office. original post https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_worlds_most_prestigious_science/cfpy15c https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_...