4 ms·

> it is pretty clear that something has changed You don't just jump into a debate about someone's scientific integrity with unrelated web links and speculation

by inimino 10y ago

> it is pretty clear that something has changed You don't just jump into a debate about someone's scientific integrity with unrelated web links and speculation that you just pulled out of your ass, and then back out with "well we can't be sure, what do you think?"

lisper 10y ago
I'm not backing out of anything. I still believe that the author's claim that the evidence is "scant" is demonstrably wrong, I just can't demonstrate it right now because I cannot find a low-bandwidth source of drought data, so I'm having to rely on proxies. But proxies are still data. Instead of leveling ad hominem attacks at me, why don't you go look up the drought data?
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Instead of leveling ad hominem attacks at me, why don't you go look up the drought data? Ah, another rhetorical ping-flood attack, forcing the recipient to do the research necessary to dispute a vague positive claim.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > forcing the recipient to do the research necessary Normally I would agree with this, but there are extenuating circumstances here. I'm not fobbing the research off on you out of laziness, I'm doing it because drought data is voluminous, summaries turn out to be very hard to find, and I'm on an extremely slow internet connection. But I did finally find this: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201... > to dispute a vague positive claim My claim is not vague. It is very specific: the evidence that climate change is increasing extreme weather events is not "scant".
- inimino 10y ago
  I don't think getting into the minutiae of drought data, or the causes of wildfires, is going to get us anywhere. The claim that evidence is scant or not would need to take into account all the evidence on the effects of climate change on current weather events. You could cherry-pick tons of evidence to support either position, if that's your thing. If you wanted to shed some light on the topic of the article, it would be more interesting to see what the author's background is and follow up some of the claims about why he was fired by 538, whether he is being unfairly attacked in the media, etc. Remember that this article isn't primarily about the science, it's about the journalism. The only reason we are talking about wildfires is because you brought it up, which was really quite a stretch.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > which was really quite a stretch It is hard to mount one's best arguments when one is operating under tight resource constraints and time pressures. HN threads get stale very quickly. > You could cherry-pick tons of evidence to support either position, if that's your thing. Heh, this whole disagreement may actually be a mistake on my part about the meaning of the word "scant." I thought "scant" meant "rare or non-existent" but it doesn't, it means "barely sufficient or adequate." So I was about to say that if there's tons of evidence to be cherry-picked then it cannot be scant. But I suppose it could be. In any case, I did finally manage to find some drought data: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201... That's a review with 137 references, so the evidence doesn't look "scant" to me. But I suppose a reasonable person might disagree.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Fair enough. Here is the original article[1] and a rebuttal[2], both on 538. Doesn't read like wild-eyed denialism to me. [1]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than... [2]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-responds-on-disaster-costs-and-climate-change/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-re...

by inimino 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

I'm not backing out of anything. I still believe that the author's claim that the evidence is "scant" is demonstrably wrong, I just can't demonstrate it right now because I cannot find a low-bandwidth source of drought data, so I'm having to rely on proxies. But proxies are still data. Instead of leveling ad hominem attacks at me, why don't you go look up the drought data?

CamperBob2 10y ago
Instead of leveling ad hominem attacks at me, why don't you go look up the drought data? Ah, another rhetorical ping-flood attack, forcing the recipient to do the research necessary to dispute a vague positive claim.
- lisper 10y ago
  > forcing the recipient to do the research necessary Normally I would agree with this, but there are extenuating circumstances here. I'm not fobbing the research off on you out of laziness, I'm doing it because drought data is voluminous, summaries turn out to be very hard to find, and I'm on an extremely slow internet connection. But I did finally find this: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201... > to dispute a vague positive claim My claim is not vague. It is very specific: the evidence that climate change is increasing extreme weather events is not "scant".
inimino 10y ago
I don't think getting into the minutiae of drought data, or the causes of wildfires, is going to get us anywhere. The claim that evidence is scant or not would need to take into account all the evidence on the effects of climate change on current weather events. You could cherry-pick tons of evidence to support either position, if that's your thing. If you wanted to shed some light on the topic of the article, it would be more interesting to see what the author's background is and follow up some of the claims about why he was fired by 538, whether he is being unfairly attacked in the media, etc. Remember that this article isn't primarily about the science, it's about the journalism. The only reason we are talking about wildfires is because you brought it up, which was really quite a stretch.
- lisper 10y ago
  > which was really quite a stretch It is hard to mount one's best arguments when one is operating under tight resource constraints and time pressures. HN threads get stale very quickly. > You could cherry-pick tons of evidence to support either position, if that's your thing. Heh, this whole disagreement may actually be a mistake on my part about the meaning of the word "scant." I thought "scant" meant "rare or non-existent" but it doesn't, it means "barely sufficient or adequate." So I was about to say that if there's tons of evidence to be cherry-picked then it cannot be scant. But I suppose it could be. In any case, I did finally manage to find some drought data: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201... That's a review with 137 references, so the evidence doesn't look "scant" to me. But I suppose a reasonable person might disagree.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Fair enough. Here is the original article[1] and a rebuttal[2], both on 538. Doesn't read like wild-eyed denialism to me. [1]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than... [2]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-responds-on-disaster-costs-and-climate-change/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-re...