6 ms·

Already, the discussion here swings toward the climate change vs. "denialist" debate. Instead of politicizing it, maybe read the article? According to those int

by Clanan 10y ago

Already, the discussion here swings toward the climate change vs. "denialist" debate. Instead of politicizing it, maybe read the article? According to those interviewed, the trend until last year was to see more ice. > “It is tempting to say that the record low we are seeing this year is global warming finally catching up with Antarctica,” Meier said. “However, this might just be an extreme case of pushing the envelope of year-to-year variability. We’ll need to have several more years of data to be able to say there has been a significant change in the trend.” Ironically, all those accusing others of being "denialists" are themselves failing to look at this scientifically, and resorting to the rudely unscientific tactic of name-calling.

exergy 10y ago
To me, that statement sounds more like "Clutching at straws, it might be an outlier extreme case of year-to-year variability, but it's probably global warming; if you want a definitive answer, wait a couple years".
scarmig 10y ago
No. Implying a single piece of decontextualized evidence--sea levels not rising--casts doubt on AGW is a classic denialist tactic. Multiple lines of evidence provide compelling arguments for AGW. It's an intellectually dishonest gambit to try to play a game of "gotcha" instead of trying to come up with the most powerful explanation for a phenomenon, and toxic to scientific discourse.
- Clanan 10y ago
  I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious) as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on understanding the science and employing civic discourse. I simply repeated what the scientist said: no conclusions yet, need more data. And in response I receive the blatant accusations of "classic denialist tactic[s]"? You think that's not toxic to discourse? (Disclosure to pre-empt the common accusation of ignorance: I'm scientifically trained and work in renewable energy R&D.)
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    Unfortunately I think the level of discourse is already at rock-bottom. I would like to agree with you and I think people do need to be careful and not jump the gun (and thereby provide fodder for the denialist camp) but at some point we can't simply be academic about it all - the evidence for AGW (or ACC preferably) is overwhelming at this point and while an objective academic is preferable it can also be damaging to the goal of changing public opinion. The denialist camp has a simple and effective strategy for disputing anthropomorphic climate change: First, always call it global warming to make it less understood and then if its cold [1], dispute GW and if any single piece of information doesn't 100% fit with GW (ie, a single datapoint that shows global temperatures cooling by ignoring ocean temperatures [2]). However, if you are being 100% honest about any climate measurements you cannot say anything other than "Well, this single measurement doesn't tell us anything but it fits with the trend of rising temperatures globally and we need more data and research.". This may be true, but its not winning the argument. People will follow simple, easy narratives and will shy from complex arguments whose consequences are also terrifying and potentially apocalyptic. By sticking to our guns and taking the high road, we might be dooming ourselves and by the time people really feel climate change it will be too late. Is our high-minded discourse worth that? I'm not saying we rabidly jump on every datapoint and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE", but until I see a lot more credible information I think its time to stop taking such a passive stance. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball... [2] https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-c...
  - mrow84 10y ago
    So, just to be clear, you're saying that the attribution of reduced Antarctic sea ice extent to global warming is unclear, and not that the phenomenon referred to as global warming is itself somehow brought into doubt by the lack of clarity on that particular issue?
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Hum, sea levels rise is a so systematic symptom of AGW that if it were lacking, it would be a reason to doubt other measurements. It would at a minimum require a very good explanation. Unfortunately, the predicted sea level rise understates what we observe. That also warrants an explanation (there have been a few articles about it here), but in the other direction.
leereeves 10y ago
To me, this just seems like the usual public overreaction to a single observation. Thirty months ago NASA reported Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reach... That made a similar impact in different circles.
Pica_soO 10y ago
But looking at the data is hard, name calling is easy.
mikeash 10y ago
The person being called a "denialist" said that this measurement isn't a problem, because if it was a problem then sea levels would be rising. This is so incorrect that it's hard to see it being a legitimate misunderstanding, and it seems quite likely to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Either way, how exactly do you think we should handle people who barge into the conversation with ridiculous arguments like "sea ice must not be decreasing, because if it was then sea levels would be up"?
- leereeves 10y ago
  Is that the flagged comment? I didn't see that comment, but I was very nearly called a denialist, and was downvoted into oblivion for pointing out that we'd need to make sacrifices to stop climate change. Clanan was basically called a denialist for quoting the article and calling out the name-calling. Someone else was warned about posting "denialist-type stuff" because they asked what caused CO2 levels to drop after the Pliocene epoch. The level of discourse in this thread is as low as I've seen it on Hacker News.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    "Very nearly called a denialist" sounds a lot like not being called a denialist. The responses you got in this thread look pretty reasonable to me. The downvotes don't seem very justified, but the discourse looks fine. Clanan took a part of the article discussing Antarctica and discussed it as if it applied to the Arctic as well. The trend in the Arctic has been decreasing sea ice for decades, with a speed that overwhelms the slow increase in the Antarctic. The climate change caution is only for the Antarctic. The article doesn't say either way, but my understanding is that the changes in the Arctic are very much believed to be linked to climate change. And despite that highly misleading cherrypicking from the article, Clanan got pretty reasonable responses, even though shrill criticism would be pretty well justified for this.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > "Very nearly called a denialist" sounds a lot like not being called a denialist. "Synthetic" was the word used. What does that refer to if not an agent of someone being paid to distribute (denialist) propaganda? Also "naive". And were you calling this a reasonable response to Clanan: "a classic denialist tactic...an intellectually dishonest gambit" Name-calling with sophisticated insults is still name-calling. If this is what you mean by "shrill criticism", I don't see how that's intended to do anything but control the discourse by driving people away.

by Clanan 10y ago

exergy 10y ago

To me, that statement sounds more like "Clutching at straws, it might be an outlier extreme case of year-to-year variability, but it's probably global warming; if you want a definitive answer, wait a couple years".

scarmig 10y ago

No. Implying a single piece of decontextualized evidence--sea levels not rising--casts doubt on AGW is a classic denialist tactic. Multiple lines of evidence provide compelling arguments for AGW. It's an intellectually dishonest gambit to try to play a game of "gotcha" instead of trying to come up with the most powerful explanation for a phenomenon, and toxic to scientific discourse.

Clanan 10y ago
I did not say what you think I said. In a topic as complex (and contentious) as weather, climate, global warming, etc. I think we should focus on understanding the science and employing civic discourse. I simply repeated what the scientist said: no conclusions yet, need more data. And in response I receive the blatant accusations of "classic denialist tactic[s]"? You think that's not toxic to discourse? (Disclosure to pre-empt the common accusation of ignorance: I'm scientifically trained and work in renewable energy R&D.)
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  Unfortunately I think the level of discourse is already at rock-bottom. I would like to agree with you and I think people do need to be careful and not jump the gun (and thereby provide fodder for the denialist camp) but at some point we can't simply be academic about it all - the evidence for AGW (or ACC preferably) is overwhelming at this point and while an objective academic is preferable it can also be damaging to the goal of changing public opinion. The denialist camp has a simple and effective strategy for disputing anthropomorphic climate change: First, always call it global warming to make it less understood and then if its cold [1], dispute GW and if any single piece of information doesn't 100% fit with GW (ie, a single datapoint that shows global temperatures cooling by ignoring ocean temperatures [2]). However, if you are being 100% honest about any climate measurements you cannot say anything other than "Well, this single measurement doesn't tell us anything but it fits with the trend of rising temperatures globally and we need more data and research.". This may be true, but its not winning the argument. People will follow simple, easy narratives and will shy from complex arguments whose consequences are also terrifying and potentially apocalyptic. By sticking to our guns and taking the high road, we might be dooming ourselves and by the time people really feel climate change it will be too late. Is our high-minded discourse worth that? I'm not saying we rabidly jump on every datapoint and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE", but until I see a lot more credible information I think its time to stop taking such a passive stance. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball... [2] https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-c...
- mrow84 10y ago
  So, just to be clear, you're saying that the attribution of reduced Antarctic sea ice extent to global warming is unclear, and not that the phenomenon referred to as global warming is itself somehow brought into doubt by the lack of clarity on that particular issue?
marcosdumay 10y ago
Hum, sea levels rise is a so systematic symptom of AGW that if it were lacking, it would be a reason to doubt other measurements. It would at a minimum require a very good explanation. Unfortunately, the predicted sea level rise understates what we observe. That also warrants an explanation (there have been a few articles about it here), but in the other direction.

leereeves 10y ago

To me, this just seems like the usual public overreaction to a single observation. Thirty months ago NASA reported Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reach... That made a similar impact in different circles.

Pica_soO 10y ago

But looking at the data is hard, name calling is easy.

mikeash 10y ago

The person being called a "denialist" said that this measurement isn't a problem, because if it was a problem then sea levels would be rising. This is so incorrect that it's hard to see it being a legitimate misunderstanding, and it seems quite likely to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Either way, how exactly do you think we should handle people who barge into the conversation with ridiculous arguments like "sea ice must not be decreasing, because if it was then sea levels would be up"?

leereeves 10y ago
Is that the flagged comment? I didn't see that comment, but I was very nearly called a denialist, and was downvoted into oblivion for pointing out that we'd need to make sacrifices to stop climate change. Clanan was basically called a denialist for quoting the article and calling out the name-calling. Someone else was warned about posting "denialist-type stuff" because they asked what caused CO2 levels to drop after the Pliocene epoch. The level of discourse in this thread is as low as I've seen it on Hacker News.
- mikeash 10y ago
  "Very nearly called a denialist" sounds a lot like not being called a denialist. The responses you got in this thread look pretty reasonable to me. The downvotes don't seem very justified, but the discourse looks fine. Clanan took a part of the article discussing Antarctica and discussed it as if it applied to the Arctic as well. The trend in the Arctic has been decreasing sea ice for decades, with a speed that overwhelms the slow increase in the Antarctic. The climate change caution is only for the Antarctic. The article doesn't say either way, but my understanding is that the changes in the Arctic are very much believed to be linked to climate change. And despite that highly misleading cherrypicking from the article, Clanan got pretty reasonable responses, even though shrill criticism would be pretty well justified for this.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    > "Very nearly called a denialist" sounds a lot like not being called a denialist. "Synthetic" was the word used. What does that refer to if not an agent of someone being paid to distribute (denialist) propaganda? Also "naive". And were you calling this a reasonable response to Clanan: "a classic denialist tactic...an intellectually dishonest gambit" Name-calling with sophisticated insults is still name-calling. If this is what you mean by "shrill criticism", I don't see how that's intended to do anything but control the discourse by driving people away.