3 ms·

I am impressed that you watched an hour long lecture in only 5 minutes. I think if you're actually technically inclined, which as an HN reader, you probably ar

by pdx 10y ago

I am impressed that you watched an hour long lecture in only 5 minutes. I think if you're actually technically inclined, which as an HN reader, you probably are, that you'll understand and enjoy the lecture.

legodt 10y ago
Thank you, but I have no interest in a channel that puts "science" next to a video titled "Donald Trump exposes the globalists." Or one that uses a scientist that has been exposed as a fraud repeatedly and stripped of their titles. My dad was into all of this stuff for years, it's really disheartening that regular folks with no ties to the industry feel invested in their lies.
awinder 10y ago
They probably just googled Murry Salby, found that they had quite the history of dodgy behavior, and moved on with their life. That's what I did at least, and I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
- pdx 10y ago
  The closed mindedness of many people that are reflex downvoting the mere suggestion that they actually try to understand those on the other side of the argument is stunning. The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM is taylor made for the highly technical level of the average HN reader. Why not watch it and see what all the fuss is about?
  - drabiega 10y ago
    You know that you are linking to an hour and a half video, right? Would you spend an hour and a half of your day which purportedly proves that the earth is torus shaped? I'm not sure about others, but I would rate the probability that such a video was worth watching about the same as the video you linked, and I suspect I'm not alone. It's not a matter of close-mindedness, it's just that the general quality of arguments against climate change and the overwhelming data in support of it inherently reduces our expectations that any argument against it will be compelling or sensical, to the point that spending that time seems like a poor proposition.
    - pdx 10y ago
      Yes, I know it's a long video. What can I do about that? This stuff takes a while to explain clearly. He talks about experiments having to do with CO2 vs temperature, and how it is the CO2 that increases because of the higher temperatures. There is also an in-depth mathematical treatment of CO2 absorption rates. As you know, CO2 does not just stay in the system forever. It is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various CO2 sinks. So knowing what the true CO2 absorption rate is, is important in knowing how big a problem you have. If you accept the premise that CO2 is bad, then having a slow absorption rate is worse than having a fast absorption rate.
      - drabiega 10y ago
        What I would expect you to do is to not call people close-minded because they are not willing to expend that time investment, especially when there are unaddressed problems with his methodology and results.
      - scrollaway 10y ago
        People have linked you a much shorter rebuttal several times and you have not addressed it. Instead, you're spending your time writing comments about how "everyone who doesn't watch this long lecture is close minded". You are trying to convince a crowd by forcing them to watch a massive video by somebody who is clearly untrustworthy. You yourself, by refusing to address the rebuttals, are displaying untrustworthy behaviour - you are attacking people for something you are yourself doing.
      - Oletros 10y ago
        It is not an hour long video, will you read it? http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/
  - theamk 10y ago
    "This cafe was closed for food safety issues twice, so they are now operating illegally. Their burgers are very good -- why not try them and see what the fuss is about"
mikeash 10y ago
I've always found arguments backed up by YouTube videos to be awful, to the point that I just preemptively dismiss them now. Video is also a really bad way to receive information. It's very time-inefficient, not searchable, difficult to refer back to, etc. IMO the only reason to post a video as a source for an argument is to be able to dismiss people who dispute the argument without wasting a bunch of time on the video first. Please post something we can read instead.
- pdx 10y ago
  Seriously? These are lectures. Did you attend lectures in college? Why? Why didn't you just read the book? Lectures serve a valuable purpose to most of us. If you could just read your way to an engineering degree, that would be awesome, but somehow, it helps to have somebody talk you through things. Haven't you found that to be true?
  - legodt 10y ago
    Please stop trolling and peddling your anti-science drivel. You are a danger to the future of everyone on this fragile planet
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I've seen great videos for learning about stuff. Here's one of my favorites, just as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 What I have not seen is a great video used to support an argument made online. I've seen plenty of "this is awesome, check it out" that panned out. I've not once seen "you are wrong, this video explains why" that did. You're asking us to invest an hour in your argument based on nothing but your insistence that it's worth it. That's not at all the same as asking a student to invest an hour in a lecture for a class they signed up for as part of an ongoing educational effort involving lectures, books, and practical work.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- bandrami 10y ago
epistasis 10y ago
I've spent quite some time investigating these claims on the technical side, and every single one of the supposed skeptics has, on investigation, shown themselves to be merely biased towards their preferred outcome and not skeptical of their own ideas at all. It's pretty much identical to the evolution skeptics, or those who are skeptical of smoking causing cancer, or those who are skeptical of the Holocaust. There may be a few slightly technical bits bandied about as loin clothes to cover the naked bias, but a small amount of investigation exposes the fraud. The liars don't bother to address or even understand the science of climate change, they just pick at the edges and think that if they can discredit one side argument, it brings down the whole field. Science and reason do not work that way (politics do, quite often). If any technical HN readers actually do want to learn about climate science, Ars Technical has been covering it quite well over the years at the level that a computer programmer can jump right into. It's also interesting reading the comment threads there. There are the usual drive-by doubters, some determined and repetitive doubters, and even a few knowledgeable commenters that provide figures, links to papers, and solid arguments that completely demolish the doubters political games. It's also taught me quite a bit about how people attempt to deceive others and control conversations, which is a useful skill for dealing with politics in life and redirecting the political back to the practical.
plus 10y ago
I think your suggestion we watch the video and make our own decision is unreasonable and made in poor faith. An hour is quite a long time to spend watching a presentation by a man who is notoriously untrustworthy, based on his prior history at the University of Colorado and Macquarie University. Since I am not a scientist in the field of climate change, I do not feel the need to convince myself that scientific consensus is correct by examining the raw evidence myself -- in fact, I suspect that doing could only mislead and cause confusion, since I am not trained in how to analyze and interpret that sort of data. Therefore, I defer to the scientific consensus. The opinions espoused by a very small minority of climate scientists that disagree with that consensus do not trouble me, particularly when these scientists have been fired from multiple research institutions, since I cannot be sure they are operating in good faith.
- pdx 10y ago
  I wish you would watch it, even if it is quite long. As I mention in another downvoted to hell post, it is a subject that takes time to present the material in an understandable way. People talk a lot about how oil money may be biasing the scientists who are skeptics. But you should know that there is a lot of money on the non-skeptic side as well. Carbon credit trading and carbon taxes are set to be huge money makers for governments and private institutions alike. As you say, many climate skeptic scientists have been fired from their positions. That tends to make the rest of them stay pretty quiet, if they don't agree with the mob. As you can see by the responses to my posts here today, it really is a dangerous opinion for a scientist to put forth, so it's reasonable that many are silent.
  - plus 10y ago
    While I may not be a climate scientist, I am a scientist, and you are being disingenuous when you insinuate that those who disagree with the scientific consensus are punished by losing their position. Dr. Salby was not fired from two research positions because he rocked the boat, he was fired because he was a poor scientist -- refusing to fulfill the requirements of his professorship, illegally profiting from state grant-funded research, etc. You are also misinterpreting the disagreement you see on HN as malice or anger. People simply are refusing the drink your kool-aid, and many people are giving very good reasons why. Perhaps you should read and understand the comments in this thread before assuming people are out to get you or your ideas.

by pdx 10y ago

legodt 10y ago

Thank you, but I have no interest in a channel that puts "science" next to a video titled "Donald Trump exposes the globalists." Or one that uses a scientist that has been exposed as a fraud repeatedly and stripped of their titles. My dad was into all of this stuff for years, it's really disheartening that regular folks with no ties to the industry feel invested in their lies.

awinder 10y ago

They probably just googled Murry Salby, found that they had quite the history of dodgy behavior, and moved on with their life. That's what I did at least, and I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.

pdx 10y ago
The closed mindedness of many people that are reflex downvoting the mere suggestion that they actually try to understand those on the other side of the argument is stunning. The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM is taylor made for the highly technical level of the average HN reader. Why not watch it and see what all the fuss is about?
- drabiega 10y ago
  You know that you are linking to an hour and a half video, right? Would you spend an hour and a half of your day which purportedly proves that the earth is torus shaped? I'm not sure about others, but I would rate the probability that such a video was worth watching about the same as the video you linked, and I suspect I'm not alone. It's not a matter of close-mindedness, it's just that the general quality of arguments against climate change and the overwhelming data in support of it inherently reduces our expectations that any argument against it will be compelling or sensical, to the point that spending that time seems like a poor proposition.
  - pdx 10y ago
    Yes, I know it's a long video. What can I do about that? This stuff takes a while to explain clearly. He talks about experiments having to do with CO2 vs temperature, and how it is the CO2 that increases because of the higher temperatures. There is also an in-depth mathematical treatment of CO2 absorption rates. As you know, CO2 does not just stay in the system forever. It is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various CO2 sinks. So knowing what the true CO2 absorption rate is, is important in knowing how big a problem you have. If you accept the premise that CO2 is bad, then having a slow absorption rate is worse than having a fast absorption rate.
    - drabiega 10y ago
      What I would expect you to do is to not call people close-minded because they are not willing to expend that time investment, especially when there are unaddressed problems with his methodology and results.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      People have linked you a much shorter rebuttal several times and you have not addressed it. Instead, you're spending your time writing comments about how "everyone who doesn't watch this long lecture is close minded". You are trying to convince a crowd by forcing them to watch a massive video by somebody who is clearly untrustworthy. You yourself, by refusing to address the rebuttals, are displaying untrustworthy behaviour - you are attacking people for something you are yourself doing.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      It is not an hour long video, will you read it? http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/
- theamk 10y ago
  "This cafe was closed for food safety issues twice, so they are now operating illegally. Their burgers are very good -- why not try them and see what the fuss is about"

mikeash 10y ago

I've always found arguments backed up by YouTube videos to be awful, to the point that I just preemptively dismiss them now. Video is also a really bad way to receive information. It's very time-inefficient, not searchable, difficult to refer back to, etc. IMO the only reason to post a video as a source for an argument is to be able to dismiss people who dispute the argument without wasting a bunch of time on the video first. Please post something we can read instead.

pdx 10y ago
Seriously? These are lectures. Did you attend lectures in college? Why? Why didn't you just read the book? Lectures serve a valuable purpose to most of us. If you could just read your way to an engineering degree, that would be awesome, but somehow, it helps to have somebody talk you through things. Haven't you found that to be true?
- legodt 10y ago
  Please stop trolling and peddling your anti-science drivel. You are a danger to the future of everyone on this fragile planet
- mikeash 10y ago
  I've seen great videos for learning about stuff. Here's one of my favorites, just as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 What I have not seen is a great video used to support an argument made online. I've seen plenty of "this is awesome, check it out" that panned out. I've not once seen "you are wrong, this video explains why" that did. You're asking us to invest an hour in your argument based on nothing but your insistence that it's worth it. That's not at all the same as asking a student to invest an hour in a lecture for a class they signed up for as part of an ongoing educational effort involving lectures, books, and practical work.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bandrami 10y ago

epistasis 10y ago

I've spent quite some time investigating these claims on the technical side, and every single one of the supposed skeptics has, on investigation, shown themselves to be merely biased towards their preferred outcome and not skeptical of their own ideas at all. It's pretty much identical to the evolution skeptics, or those who are skeptical of smoking causing cancer, or those who are skeptical of the Holocaust. There may be a few slightly technical bits bandied about as loin clothes to cover the naked bias, but a small amount of investigation exposes the fraud. The liars don't bother to address or even understand the science of climate change, they just pick at the edges and think that if they can discredit one side argument, it brings down the whole field. Science and reason do not work that way (politics do, quite often). If any technical HN readers actually do want to learn about climate science, Ars Technical has been covering it quite well over the years at the level that a computer programmer can jump right into. It's also interesting reading the comment threads there. There are the usual drive-by doubters, some determined and repetitive doubters, and even a few knowledgeable commenters that provide figures, links to papers, and solid arguments that completely demolish the doubters political games. It's also taught me quite a bit about how people attempt to deceive others and control conversations, which is a useful skill for dealing with politics in life and redirecting the political back to the practical.

plus 10y ago

I think your suggestion we watch the video and make our own decision is unreasonable and made in poor faith. An hour is quite a long time to spend watching a presentation by a man who is notoriously untrustworthy, based on his prior history at the University of Colorado and Macquarie University. Since I am not a scientist in the field of climate change, I do not feel the need to convince myself that scientific consensus is correct by examining the raw evidence myself -- in fact, I suspect that doing could only mislead and cause confusion, since I am not trained in how to analyze and interpret that sort of data. Therefore, I defer to the scientific consensus. The opinions espoused by a very small minority of climate scientists that disagree with that consensus do not trouble me, particularly when these scientists have been fired from multiple research institutions, since I cannot be sure they are operating in good faith.

pdx 10y ago
I wish you would watch it, even if it is quite long. As I mention in another downvoted to hell post, it is a subject that takes time to present the material in an understandable way. People talk a lot about how oil money may be biasing the scientists who are skeptics. But you should know that there is a lot of money on the non-skeptic side as well. Carbon credit trading and carbon taxes are set to be huge money makers for governments and private institutions alike. As you say, many climate skeptic scientists have been fired from their positions. That tends to make the rest of them stay pretty quiet, if they don't agree with the mob. As you can see by the responses to my posts here today, it really is a dangerous opinion for a scientist to put forth, so it's reasonable that many are silent.
- plus 10y ago
  While I may not be a climate scientist, I am a scientist, and you are being disingenuous when you insinuate that those who disagree with the scientific consensus are punished by losing their position. Dr. Salby was not fired from two research positions because he rocked the boat, he was fired because he was a poor scientist -- refusing to fulfill the requirements of his professorship, illegally profiting from state grant-funded research, etc. You are also misinterpreting the disagreement you see on HN as malice or anger. People simply are refusing the drink your kool-aid, and many people are giving very good reasons why. Perhaps you should read and understand the comments in this thread before assuming people are out to get you or your ideas.