4 ms·

> 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." T

> 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
        I didn't leave it out. I devoted an entire paragraph to it. Characterizing it as "asking questions" is completely off base. The flagged comment asked no questions. It merely made statements, all of which were wrong or worse. I'm starting to wonder if you're engaging in this conversation in good faith.
        leereeves 10y ago
        You left out the actual words of that comment (while quoting two others), then you accused me of not acting in good faith. This topic has brought the level of discussion here to record lows. Reply to your edit: If characterizing it as asking questions is incorrect, I apologize. As I said, I haven't seen the actual comment (because someone flagged it, apparently without good reason). Perhaps I should say "raising counterpoints is denialist, don't do that". To me, that's equally unacceptable here.
        mikeash 10y ago
        "This topic has brought the level of discussion here to record lows." At least we can agree on that, but IMO the blame rests entirely with the people who go out of their way to defend people posting nonsense in an attempt to discredit the entire idea of climate change.

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
      I didn't leave it out. I devoted an entire paragraph to it. Characterizing it as "asking questions" is completely off base. The flagged comment asked no questions. It merely made statements, all of which were wrong or worse. I'm starting to wonder if you're engaging in this conversation in good faith.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        You left out the actual words of that comment (while quoting two others), then you accused me of not acting in good faith. This topic has brought the level of discussion here to record lows. Reply to your edit: If characterizing it as asking questions is incorrect, I apologize. As I said, I haven't seen the actual comment (because someone flagged it, apparently without good reason). Perhaps I should say "raising counterpoints is denialist, don't do that". To me, that's equally unacceptable here.
        mikeash 10y ago
        "This topic has brought the level of discussion here to record lows." At least we can agree on that, but IMO the blame rests entirely with the people who go out of their way to defend people posting nonsense in an attempt to discredit the entire idea of climate change.