5 ms·
Most topics on HN have people staunchly defending different camps; this is just an obvious one. As an example, Signal is very controversial, so there are a few
by nickff 10y ago
Most topics on HN have people staunchly defending different camps; this is just an obvious one. As an example, Signal is very controversial, so there are a few people who say it's great for privacy, and another group that say it's misleading and less secure than it appears. Full disclosure: I don't have a position on Signal, but I'm a big fan of Moxie.
How would you "discuss these things" without having different points of view? Should we all just post 'this climate change is even worse than I thought', then respond 'I knew it was this bad, see my post from 2 years ago'?
- mikeash 10y agoThere are plenty of things to discuss within the broad camp of "accepts that climate change is real and a potential problem." For example, the severity, the cause of individual events, the best responses, the potential dangers in the future, etc. Instead, we just get these condescending posts completely dismissing any notion of climate change at all. I do not see this phenomenon with other fact-based topics discussed here. When there's a story about vaccine, we're not flooded with people telling us how vaccines are full of toxins and don't prevent disease. When there's a story about genetics, we're not flooded with people telling us that evolution is a hoax. Physics stories don't get flooded with comments pushing Time Cube or whatever. Yes, we do get some comments like that, but not many. Sure, something like Signal is controversial, but that's something that's naturally based on opinion. Dissent about the tradeoffs of something like Signal is quite different from dissent about the reality of climate change.
- nickff 10y agoSo if I just say that whatever I believe is the 'reality of _", the conversation should switch to the potential ramifications of the ideas I believe? It seems like you are just saying that we should discuss the issues you (or some arbitrarily selected group of your choice) believe to be contentious issues. If you have some non-viewpoint-based standard for what is a legitimate topic of debate, I would be happy to see it.
- hnhg 10y agoHe's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."
- nickff 10y agoWhat type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory? Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1] My basic issue is that it seems mikeash is trying to impose their arbitrary standard on others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoUltimately it doesn't matter because equating opinions to actions is like debating the difference between a recipe and a steaming plate of risotto. If you want to help prevent climate change, put up solar panels, get an electric car and hook it up to a renewable grid, eat less meat, fly less, whatever, just do something, because arguing with strangers over the Internet changes nothing at all. My comment has no effect on climate change either.
- hnhg 10y agoI guess more than just saying "this is bunkum" - I'm talking about examining the evidence and analytical techniques on both sides and engaging in debate rather than shutting the other side down, etc. Just citing stuff is a superficial level of debate, but for non-experts like us maybe that's all we can muster. In that case, we have to acknowledge that.
- mikeash 10y agoI'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics. The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is, well, that's a problem.
- FrancoDiaz 10y agoI am what you would call a "denier". By the way, when you people use that term, it makes you sound very cultish, especially the calls from leftists for the death penalty for deniers. I actually don't "deny" that there could be anthropogenic climate change, but until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs (economic, freedom), and also when the left stops "denying" that it fits conveniently into their ideological economic model, then there can be no honest conversation. There are plenty of things to discuss within the broad camp of "accepts that climate change is real and a potential problem." For example, the severity, the cause of individual events, the best responses, the potential dangers in the future, etc. So you really don't want to discuss it? It's either your reality or the highway, as your other respondent alluded to.
- aroberge 10y agoPerhaps if you didn't equate "denier=the right", "non-denier=the left" and didn't make swiping statements like "until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs", and refer to "you people", you might find that others might be willing to discuss.
- splawn 10y agoYou want honesty? Scientific discovery doesn't care about economic models. The chemical properties of CO2 are not affected by politics. You don't get to vote on thermodynamics. There is no debate regarding the existence of AGW, except outside of science. What is this leftist ideological economic model you speak of?
- splawn 10y agoright... nothing valid to say...
- mikeash 10y agoI don't understand. Do I understand correctly that you accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening? If so, then you're not a denier and none of this applies to you.