5 ms·

I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. Personally I believ

I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. A lot of nonsense is being written and copied by everybody without any critical thinking. It's also happening when it comes to climate change. I'm not denying it, but I do think that there is a lot about its implications that we don't understand very well yet.

tobltobs 10y ago
Stop hiding your lazy "I don't wanna change my lifestyle" character behind your "critical thinking" nonsense.
Daishiman 10y ago
> Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. Are you critical about how to conduct effective medical trials in your everyday life? Are you critical about the best catalogue hierarchy for books in a public library? Are you critical of the driving techniques of truckers under snow conditions? You can critique anything in life and there's a hell of a lot of things that are important for which we recognize that we have little knowledge in the domain and that our criticism is mere curiousity but has no relevance whatsoever. For some reason only a narrow band of Americans think that their knowledge or their credentials on the subject allows them to challenge the topic critically or consider that the the scientific consensus on the matter is wrong. It's a bullshit argument from bullshit skeptics. Critical thinking comes from having a minimum baseline knowledge of the subject. I have yet to meet a skeptic who does. The actual, real skeptics are the peers of climate scientists who have domain knowledge and can ask about the modeling techniques in papers, what equations were utilized, what assumptions are taken and so on. Without that it's the same level of intellectual drudgery as anti-vaxxers.
- misja111 10y ago
  Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not denying climate change, judging by some reactions that apparently wasn't clear enough. Now to what you are saying. First of all, being critical of what the media writes about some scientific subject, is not the same as being critical of the scientist that did the research. Many times research is wrongly quoted or taken out of context. Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. Science makes progress from new facts and experiments that can't be explained by the current theory. If people would refuse to see those facts, progress would never be made.
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    > Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. No, it shows that you haven't been reading the minimum baseline material. Antartic ice surface is spreading but the volume is decreasing dramatically. The surface spread is due to lower atmospheric temperatures given the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the ice, leading to the melt in ice shelves that used to be stable. There is no point of contention there and if you had actually done the research this should have come up easily.
    - misja111 10y ago
      Well, it seems you haven't read the Nasa report that I was referring to. The increase that was measured was not in surface but in mass. Unless the density of the Antrarctic ice is increasing dramatically as well, that means volume is increasing, not decreasing.
      - 10y ago
- dwc 10y ago
  Years ago I had little opinion on climate change. During the big email scandal[1] I decided to look into it myself, as an outsider. I downloaded the leaked emails. I downloaded various data sets. I also followed online arguments between climate scientists and climate skeptics. After trying to grok the mammoth amounts of data, I realized that it would take me forever just to come up to speed. I decided to focus on the arguments. What I found was that the climate scientists could answer every objection, and I could trace back to the data itself and validate what they were saying. The "skeptics" would either: repeat their claim without acknowledging the rebuttal, or would switch to arguing something else completely, or would not reply at all only to go somewhere else and repeat their rebutted claim(s) without modification. Being something of a skeptic myself (in an evidence-based way), I recognize this pattern of behavior. It's not skepticism; it's denial. It's a marketing campaign. When you have a true skeptic of climate change look into it, you end up with the Koch-funded Richard Muller deciding that, yeah, it's real science done well and that climate change is real. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_cont...
burkaman 10y ago
Ok, but do you accept that we understand enough of the implications to know that it will be very bad for humans?
JofArnold 10y ago
When you are presented with uniform agreement of countless scientists, debating it is a waste of time. Seriously. I just can't understand how people still believe debating this makes any sense.
- davexunit 10y ago
  Yeah, I think debating the issue gives legitimacy to the climate change deniers. People have largely stopped debating creationists for this same reason. I think a Venn diagram of creationists and climate change deniers would have quite a bit of overlap.
ocschwar 10y ago
> I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. The theory was first proposed in 1820, demonstrated in a lab in 1864, proposed with climate predictions 1894, and studied ever more intensely ever since. It's about as old as the germ theory of disease. So the same standard applies: if you attack the germ theory of disease or the global warming theory, you need to show some demand evidence, or else, put up with lots of negative sentiment vented by people who are justly angered that you asked for their attention and didn't show them enough respect to warrant their attention.
MrZongle2 10y ago
"I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory." And by the looks of the responses your post received, your reaction is justified. While its roots may be in science, the Climate Change movement has become a church unto itself. And one that does not treat potential Martin Luthers kindly.
- ra1n85 10y ago
  Thought the same myself. More often than not, it all comes across like climate change is some vengeful god who we must sacrifice for and express an unshakable belief in. Would love to see more pragmatism and less dogma. I think that would help.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    There isn't any dogma yet to see. The only thing happening is pragmatism in the form "Let us see, maybe it will not be too bad."
    - ra1n85 10y ago
      I disagree. There are those that work on sustainable, inexpensive, and not environmentally damaging energy production. This kind of work is pragmatic, as it approaches the problem as one we can solve. There are also those that seek to punctuate the discussion and create strawmen, like yourself - that's the dogma side :)
      - tobltobs 10y ago
        The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic, of course. In the most parts of the world dogmatic science was abolished after the middle age. So I don't know what your comment actually tries to communicate, apart of this strawmen thing, which itself is a strawmen.
        10y ago

tobltobs 10y ago

Stop hiding your lazy "I don't wanna change my lifestyle" character behind your "critical thinking" nonsense.

Daishiman 10y ago

> Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. Are you critical about how to conduct effective medical trials in your everyday life? Are you critical about the best catalogue hierarchy for books in a public library? Are you critical of the driving techniques of truckers under snow conditions? You can critique anything in life and there's a hell of a lot of things that are important for which we recognize that we have little knowledge in the domain and that our criticism is mere curiousity but has no relevance whatsoever. For some reason only a narrow band of Americans think that their knowledge or their credentials on the subject allows them to challenge the topic critically or consider that the the scientific consensus on the matter is wrong. It's a bullshit argument from bullshit skeptics. Critical thinking comes from having a minimum baseline knowledge of the subject. I have yet to meet a skeptic who does. The actual, real skeptics are the peers of climate scientists who have domain knowledge and can ask about the modeling techniques in papers, what equations were utilized, what assumptions are taken and so on. Without that it's the same level of intellectual drudgery as anti-vaxxers.

misja111 10y ago
Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not denying climate change, judging by some reactions that apparently wasn't clear enough. Now to what you are saying. First of all, being critical of what the media writes about some scientific subject, is not the same as being critical of the scientist that did the research. Many times research is wrongly quoted or taken out of context. Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. Science makes progress from new facts and experiments that can't be explained by the current theory. If people would refuse to see those facts, progress would never be made.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  > Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. No, it shows that you haven't been reading the minimum baseline material. Antartic ice surface is spreading but the volume is decreasing dramatically. The surface spread is due to lower atmospheric temperatures given the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the ice, leading to the melt in ice shelves that used to be stable. There is no point of contention there and if you had actually done the research this should have come up easily.
  - misja111 10y ago
    Well, it seems you haven't read the Nasa report that I was referring to. The increase that was measured was not in surface but in mass. Unless the density of the Antrarctic ice is increasing dramatically as well, that means volume is increasing, not decreasing.
    - 10y ago
dwc 10y ago
Years ago I had little opinion on climate change. During the big email scandal[1] I decided to look into it myself, as an outsider. I downloaded the leaked emails. I downloaded various data sets. I also followed online arguments between climate scientists and climate skeptics. After trying to grok the mammoth amounts of data, I realized that it would take me forever just to come up to speed. I decided to focus on the arguments. What I found was that the climate scientists could answer every objection, and I could trace back to the data itself and validate what they were saying. The "skeptics" would either: repeat their claim without acknowledging the rebuttal, or would switch to arguing something else completely, or would not reply at all only to go somewhere else and repeat their rebutted claim(s) without modification. Being something of a skeptic myself (in an evidence-based way), I recognize this pattern of behavior. It's not skepticism; it's denial. It's a marketing campaign. When you have a true skeptic of climate change look into it, you end up with the Koch-funded Richard Muller deciding that, yeah, it's real science done well and that climate change is real. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_cont...

burkaman 10y ago

Ok, but do you accept that we understand enough of the implications to know that it will be very bad for humans?

JofArnold 10y ago

When you are presented with uniform agreement of countless scientists, debating it is a waste of time. Seriously. I just can't understand how people still believe debating this makes any sense.

davexunit 10y ago
Yeah, I think debating the issue gives legitimacy to the climate change deniers. People have largely stopped debating creationists for this same reason. I think a Venn diagram of creationists and climate change deniers would have quite a bit of overlap.

ocschwar 10y ago

> I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. The theory was first proposed in 1820, demonstrated in a lab in 1864, proposed with climate predictions 1894, and studied ever more intensely ever since. It's about as old as the germ theory of disease. So the same standard applies: if you attack the germ theory of disease or the global warming theory, you need to show some demand evidence, or else, put up with lots of negative sentiment vented by people who are justly angered that you asked for their attention and didn't show them enough respect to warrant their attention.

MrZongle2 10y ago

"I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory." And by the looks of the responses your post received, your reaction is justified. While its roots may be in science, the Climate Change movement has become a church unto itself. And one that does not treat potential Martin Luthers kindly.

ra1n85 10y ago
Thought the same myself. More often than not, it all comes across like climate change is some vengeful god who we must sacrifice for and express an unshakable belief in. Would love to see more pragmatism and less dogma. I think that would help.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  There isn't any dogma yet to see. The only thing happening is pragmatism in the form "Let us see, maybe it will not be too bad."
  - ra1n85 10y ago
    I disagree. There are those that work on sustainable, inexpensive, and not environmentally damaging energy production. This kind of work is pragmatic, as it approaches the problem as one we can solve. There are also those that seek to punctuate the discussion and create strawmen, like yourself - that's the dogma side :)
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic, of course. In the most parts of the world dogmatic science was abolished after the middle age. So I don't know what your comment actually tries to communicate, apart of this strawmen thing, which itself is a strawmen.
      - 10y ago