4 ms·

Let me ask you a favor. Read the article, then come back and let us know if you think your post was fair.

by WillPostForFood 10y ago

notadoc 10y ago
My Unhappy Life As A Paywall Heretic :(
- wallace_f 10y ago
  In the comments section here, someone kindly posted an alternative link: http://archive.is/iFMxG http://archive.is/iFMxG
- aetherson 10y ago
  Search the article on Google and open in an incognito window. The WSJ's paywall usually goes down if you do. Also, maybe don't insult people based on articles you haven't read.
  - notadoc 10y ago
    Some people say you can Google WSJ and open their articles in an incognito window, but there really isn't a consensus about that and the evidence is scant.
- DanBC 10y ago
  At the top of the HN page for this submission is a [web] link. Right click it and open it in a new incognito window. Click the first link.
mikeash 10y ago
Read this one and tell me if you think it wasn't: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... I don't know who's right, here, but the guy is hardly an unbiased source. Plenty of climate deniers like to paint themselves as just rationally examining the facts and reaching politically inconvenient conclusions.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  I read your article, and I think comparing him to a gravity unbeliever/flat earther is grossly unfair. I don't know who's right either, but the answer isn't attacking Pielke, or preventing him from speaking, or getting him fired, or starting government investigations. Pielke is surely biased, but so is the author of the Guardian article, and so is Tom Steyer, and so is Paul Krugman.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    To be fair though, most of those other journalists are biased by most of the scientists and evidence out there. Yes he's not a flat earther, but he is out of his depth in climate science, and his flawed work is used by deniers, as in the comments in the WSJ.
- pidge 10y ago
  Can you help me understand the graph that article references to claim that more storms are happening?[1] It looks like some classes of disaster have tripled since the '80s, and in general that disasters have basically doubled. Those both seem way beyond what I would imagine being caused by the the global temperature rise of about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the same period. (If temperate increases continue at the same rate, would we see another doubling of all weather-related disasters in ~30 years?). Anyways, that makes me wonder whether the graph captures something like reported disasters or if disaster trends happen on multi-decade scales and that 35-year span is dominated by "short-term" variation. I can't find the original context, but there looks to be an updated version of the graph in this report from the same source [2] and the commentary is "In terms of the number of events, the trend towards greater and more detailed reporting continued, with the total number further increasing to 1,060 events." 1. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/23/1395603535739/MunichReDisasterFrequency450.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1496ff6eb01f5082a97fdc1ca0fa1012 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict... 2. Comment page 54, graph page 56 https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-1170838805/mram/assetpool.munichreamerica.wrap/PDF/03Weather%20Risks/08875_Topics_Geo_2015_en.pdf https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-11...

Let me ask you a favor. Read the article, then come back and let us know if you think your post was fair.

notadoc 10y ago

My Unhappy Life As A Paywall Heretic :(

wallace_f 10y ago
In the comments section here, someone kindly posted an alternative link: http://archive.is/iFMxG http://archive.is/iFMxG
aetherson 10y ago
Search the article on Google and open in an incognito window. The WSJ's paywall usually goes down if you do. Also, maybe don't insult people based on articles you haven't read.
- notadoc 10y ago
  Some people say you can Google WSJ and open their articles in an incognito window, but there really isn't a consensus about that and the evidence is scant.
DanBC 10y ago
At the top of the HN page for this submission is a [web] link. Right click it and open it in a new incognito window. Click the first link.

mikeash 10y ago

Read this one and tell me if you think it wasn't: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... I don't know who's right, here, but the guy is hardly an unbiased source. Plenty of climate deniers like to paint themselves as just rationally examining the facts and reaching politically inconvenient conclusions.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
I read your article, and I think comparing him to a gravity unbeliever/flat earther is grossly unfair. I don't know who's right either, but the answer isn't attacking Pielke, or preventing him from speaking, or getting him fired, or starting government investigations. Pielke is surely biased, but so is the author of the Guardian article, and so is Tom Steyer, and so is Paul Krugman.
- triplesec 10y ago
  To be fair though, most of those other journalists are biased by most of the scientists and evidence out there. Yes he's not a flat earther, but he is out of his depth in climate science, and his flawed work is used by deniers, as in the comments in the WSJ.
pidge 10y ago
Can you help me understand the graph that article references to claim that more storms are happening?[1] It looks like some classes of disaster have tripled since the '80s, and in general that disasters have basically doubled. Those both seem way beyond what I would imagine being caused by the the global temperature rise of about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the same period. (If temperate increases continue at the same rate, would we see another doubling of all weather-related disasters in ~30 years?). Anyways, that makes me wonder whether the graph captures something like reported disasters or if disaster trends happen on multi-decade scales and that 35-year span is dominated by "short-term" variation. I can't find the original context, but there looks to be an updated version of the graph in this report from the same source [2] and the commentary is "In terms of the number of events, the trend towards greater and more detailed reporting continued, with the total number further increasing to 1,060 events." 1. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/23/1395603535739/MunichReDisasterFrequency450.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1496ff6eb01f5082a97fdc1ca0fa1012 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict... 2. Comment page 54, graph page 56 https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-1170838805/mram/assetpool.munichreamerica.wrap/PDF/03Weather%20Risks/08875_Topics_Geo_2015_en.pdf https://www.munichre.com/site/mram-mobile/get/documents_E-11...