5 ms·

At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a

by d--b 9y ago

At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.

noja 9y ago
It's belief. Pay people (indirectly or directly) to not understand something and they will do a fantastic job.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Do you mean pay the scientists or a different group?
  - noja 9y ago
    People who will be disadvantaged by efforts to reduce climate change (by driving less/walking more, eating less red meat, etc.).
Banthum 9y ago
Conflation and a strawman. What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this. The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today. "X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
- DanBC 9y ago
  > What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    I think it'd be a challenge to even dig up a serious Internet comment that clearly stated this. If you think someone's saying this, be sure you're not just inferring it to make a strawman. In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses. This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
    - TheBeardKing 9y ago
      While you're stubbornly clinging to semantics, the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate. On one side is the consensus opinion that manmade emissions have artificially accelerated global warming, and the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles. Is that pedantic enough for you? Can we move on?
      - Banthum 9y ago
        >the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate And yet, your grandparent comment... >the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles [Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says. This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver. Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
        TheBeardKing 9y ago
        There's obviously a spectrum of unscientific positions, take your pick: Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate. Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mirimir 9y ago
Well, except that a substantial percentage of Americans do believe that "God did ... create the world in seven days." Maybe they'll come around in another century or two. But maybe not, because maybe global civilization will have crashed by then. Either way, I'll be dead. So hey.
deckiedan 9y ago
I absolutely agree. As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting. As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses: From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time): Eon 1: - The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. - Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate. Eon 2: - The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units. - Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ). Eon 3: - Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear. - Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet. Eon 4: - The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night. Eon 5: - Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet. Eon 6: - Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up. Eon 7: - Now. Beginning of written histories. The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet. What do you think?
- coliveira 9y ago
  Typical reinterpretation of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, the text also says: "it was the evening and the morning, the first day." i.e., the text goes out of the way to affirm that this was the task of a single day, not of an eon.
  - deckiedan 9y ago
    Well, kinda. What is an evening or morning when there is no sun, night, day time? More likely it's just a poetic turn of phrase. What I find interesting is you can stick to "it's poetic, but modern scientific understanding can fit in happily" And aren't forced into saying, "science and Genesis are incompatible".

by d--b 9y ago

noja 9y ago

It's belief. Pay people (indirectly or directly) to not understand something and they will do a fantastic job.

dogruck 9y ago
Do you mean pay the scientists or a different group?
- noja 9y ago
  People who will be disadvantaged by efforts to reduce climate change (by driving less/walking more, eating less red meat, etc.).

Banthum 9y ago

Conflation and a strawman. What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this. The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today. "X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"

DanBC 9y ago
> What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
- Banthum 9y ago
  I think it'd be a challenge to even dig up a serious Internet comment that clearly stated this. If you think someone's saying this, be sure you're not just inferring it to make a strawman. In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses. This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
  - TheBeardKing 9y ago
    While you're stubbornly clinging to semantics, the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate. On one side is the consensus opinion that manmade emissions have artificially accelerated global warming, and the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles. Is that pedantic enough for you? Can we move on?
    - Banthum 9y ago
      >the rest of us recognize that the debate is indeed about the severity and consequences of a rapidly changing climate And yet, your grandparent comment... >the other says that CO2 has no effect on natural, periodic climate cycles [Emphasis above mine] No, this absolutely is not what "the other side" says. This is not about "semantics", it's a fundamental disconnect wherein people are talking past each other because they are stubbornly not acknowledging (or even aware) or what the others are saying. Your comment leads me to believe that it's not a tactic of any kind, but rather an internal perceptual distortion, which can only be solved by effort on the part of the perceiver. Steelman your opponents, people. You can do so much better than this!
      - TheBeardKing 9y ago
        There's obviously a spectrum of unscientific positions, take your pick: Extreme right position held by POTUS and the like: climate change is a hoax and humans aren't responsible for changes in climate. Chair of house science committe: Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant and climate isn't significantly sensitive to manmade emissions EPA: extreme whether events don't signify a trend, economic concerns are more important than regulations I'd be satisfied if politicians just quit playing scientists and started making policy decisions instead of steering/filtering scientific results.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mirimir 9y ago

Well, except that a substantial percentage of Americans do believe that "God did ... create the world in seven days." Maybe they'll come around in another century or two. But maybe not, because maybe global civilization will have crashed by then. Either way, I'll be dead. So hey.

deckiedan 9y ago

I absolutely agree. As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting. As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses: From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time): Eon 1: - The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. - Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate. Eon 2: - The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units. - Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ). Eon 3: - Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear. - Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet. Eon 4: - The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night. Eon 5: - Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet. Eon 6: - Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up. Eon 7: - Now. Beginning of written histories. The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet. What do you think?

coliveira 9y ago
Typical reinterpretation of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, the text also says: "it was the evening and the morning, the first day." i.e., the text goes out of the way to affirm that this was the task of a single day, not of an eon.
- deckiedan 9y ago
  Well, kinda. What is an evening or morning when there is no sun, night, day time? More likely it's just a poetic turn of phrase. What I find interesting is you can stick to "it's poetic, but modern scientific understanding can fit in happily" And aren't forced into saying, "science and Genesis are incompatible".