3 ms·

> "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 so

> "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.

mikeash 10y ago
"a classic denialist tactic...an intellectually dishonest gambit" This quote was used to describe the flagged comment, in which the person said that the article was misleading because if sea ice were really decreasing then sea levels would be rising. That seems completely accurate and justified to me.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." The comment to which you're referring could be shortened to "sea levels are rising".
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Calling out extremely bad arguments as extremely bad seems reasonable to me. That comment didn't understand that floating ice doesn't increase water levels when it melts. That's either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. It would be like a comment on a math article saying that if multiplication were real then 2+2 would equal 5. Keep in mind that this is not just an area where there are some ignorant people. There's a ton of money and powerful political organizations (one of which happens to be running most of the US federal government right now) trying very hard to convince people that climate change is a fraud, and using tactics just like this to do it.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > That comment didn't understand that floating ice doesn't increase water levels when it melts. That's either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. Your misunderstanding of the knowledge of an average person is either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. See how unproductive such comments are? But seriously, how many people do you think actually understand buoyancy? A simple explanation that floating ice displaces an equal amount (mass, not volume) of water would be both more civil and more productive.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        The actual replies that comment got are completely benign: "Sea ice melting doesn't cause sea level increases." "Arctic sea ice thickness and volume are decreasing too." The word "denialist" only came up when someone tried to explain to this person why they got downvoted. And it doesn't even accuse the commenter of being one, it just says that their argument is along those lines, and explicitly admits the possibility that it's unintentional. The quote you dislike didn't come out until some other person posted a comment trying to defend the "denialist" side, and incidentally using a dishonest summary of part of the article to do it. I really don't see what you want here. What you say should have been done seems to be what was done. Edit: also, how many people do I think actually understand buoyancy on HN? All of them.
        leereeves 10y ago
        Why did you leave out the top voted reply? > So, you seem flummoxed by the downvoting. I'm not sure it's warranted, but here's an explanation so you don't run into it in the future: > Most climate change denialists don't know how science works. Or, if they do, they cynically prey on the public's ignorance. I'm not up to date on sea level data, but even if what you say is true, you didn't just disprove climate change and proved that scientists are a bunch of conspiratorial UN socialists. The most popular reply to that comment here was basically saying "asking questions is denialist, don't do that."

mikeash 10y ago

"a classic denialist tactic...an intellectually dishonest gambit" This quote was used to describe the flagged comment, in which the person said that the article was misleading because if sea ice were really decreasing then sea levels would be rising. That seems completely accurate and justified to me.

leereeves 10y ago
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." The comment to which you're referring could be shortened to "sea levels are rising".
- mikeash 10y ago
  Calling out extremely bad arguments as extremely bad seems reasonable to me. That comment didn't understand that floating ice doesn't increase water levels when it melts. That's either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. It would be like a comment on a math article saying that if multiplication were real then 2+2 would equal 5. Keep in mind that this is not just an area where there are some ignorant people. There's a ton of money and powerful political organizations (one of which happens to be running most of the US federal government right now) trying very hard to convince people that climate change is a fraud, and using tactics just like this to do it.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    > That comment didn't understand that floating ice doesn't increase water levels when it melts. That's either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. Your misunderstanding of the knowledge of an average person is either a deliberate attempt to confuse, or something so clueless that it's indistinguishable from malice. See how unproductive such comments are? But seriously, how many people do you think actually understand buoyancy? A simple explanation that floating ice displaces an equal amount (mass, not volume) of water would be both more civil and more productive.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The actual replies that comment got are completely benign: "Sea ice melting doesn't cause sea level increases." "Arctic sea ice thickness and volume are decreasing too." The word "denialist" only came up when someone tried to explain to this person why they got downvoted. And it doesn't even accuse the commenter of being one, it just says that their argument is along those lines, and explicitly admits the possibility that it's unintentional. The quote you dislike didn't come out until some other person posted a comment trying to defend the "denialist" side, and incidentally using a dishonest summary of part of the article to do it. I really don't see what you want here. What you say should have been done seems to be what was done. Edit: also, how many people do I think actually understand buoyancy on HN? All of them.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        Why did you leave out the top voted reply? > So, you seem flummoxed by the downvoting. I'm not sure it's warranted, but here's an explanation so you don't run into it in the future: > Most climate change denialists don't know how science works. Or, if they do, they cynically prey on the public's ignorance. I'm not up to date on sea level data, but even if what you say is true, you didn't just disprove climate change and proved that scientists are a bunch of conspiratorial UN socialists. The most popular reply to that comment here was basically saying "asking questions is denialist, don't do that."