4 ms·

All right! https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-change-uninhabitable/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-chang... https:

All right! https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-change-uninhabitable/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-chang... https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-india-and-pakistan-uninhabitable-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-i... https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/i... I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided. Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?

nonbel 8y ago
> "All right!" It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. > "I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided." There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. Making those posts without sources is worse than useless if your goal is really to convince people you are correct. > "Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?" No, I wanted to see where you were getting these ideas. Now I know... I can tell right away that none of those sources are going to contain enough info to really tell how those conclusions were drawn but nevertheless, can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? I mean if you really want to convince people, don't give them secondary sources and make them dig into the primary sources. Go get the direct quotes from the research literature or researchers involved yourself. BTW, I have never had the experience of journalists being able to accurately describe anything I am an expert about.
- albedoa 8y ago
  It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. It is exceptional to expect or require sources for well-known ideas to be attached to every comment that alludes to or evokes them. None of us needed sources to understand the point that the OP was making. can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each? I'm baffled that you have made it this guy's job to hunt down and feed you primary sources because he wrote a comment that assumes some baseline knowledge.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each?" I said, "at least" have sources. That is like the bare minimum. Here is a post I made earlier today that meets my standards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 You can find many posts in my history that have a similar format.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. You said I was just like a crazy person ranting on a street corner. If you didn't intend to sound hostile, you did a very poor job of communicating.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    People have told me similar about other topics and I learned from it. I interpreted it as a fact about how just claiming something is wrong appears to some people. The doomsday aspect definately accentuates it though.
lifeformed 8y ago
The facts are a keystroke away, plain as day, shouted for years upon deaf ears. People who ask you to Google for them these answers aren't arguing in good faith. There's nothing left to debate, the details were figured out a long time ago. At this point, I'm convinced that there are zero climate skeptics who really want to find answers; it's all willful ignorance or malice. It's comically stupid how the obvious truth is met with so much resistance. The desire to preserve the status quo is the strongest force in civilization. On one side you have 99.9% of scientists saying that we're screwed. On the other side you have 0.1% of scientists paid by oil megacorp lobbyists saying it's fine. Hmm... what should one conclude? On one hand you have politicians and the ultrarich saying everything is okay. on the other hand, the same politicians and rich people are quietly buying safe houses and building seawalls and preparing for doomsday. Oh and the military is training for and developing technologies to deal with the new scenarios. Hmm... what could it mean? We're boiling alive fast enough that we can't handle it, but slow enough that we won't do anything about it. The last two people on earth are going to die arguing about why it's so hot.
- nonbel 8y ago
  It isn't about facts or "truth" or "99.9% of scientists saying" we are screwed. That isn't how science/engineering works, its how politics works. Perhaps that is why there is difficulty communicating across the gap. Do you have a source for that last one by the way (99.9 % of scientists saying we are screwed)?
  - lifeformed 8y ago
    Info: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/027046761770707... And the paper itself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl...
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Can you quote the part of the paper where you think it claims "99.9% of scientists [are] saying that we're screwed." I just looked and didn't see it.

nonbel 8y ago

> "All right!" It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. > "I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided." There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. Making those posts without sources is worse than useless if your goal is really to convince people you are correct. > "Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?" No, I wanted to see where you were getting these ideas. Now I know... I can tell right away that none of those sources are going to contain enough info to really tell how those conclusions were drawn but nevertheless, can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? I mean if you really want to convince people, don't give them secondary sources and make them dig into the primary sources. Go get the direct quotes from the research literature or researchers involved yourself. BTW, I have never had the experience of journalists being able to accurately describe anything I am an expert about.

albedoa 8y ago
It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. It is exceptional to expect or require sources for well-known ideas to be attached to every comment that alludes to or evokes them. None of us needed sources to understand the point that the OP was making. can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each? I'm baffled that you have made it this guy's job to hunt down and feed you primary sources because he wrote a comment that assumes some baseline knowledge.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each?" I said, "at least" have sources. That is like the bare minimum. Here is a post I made earlier today that meets my standards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 You can find many posts in my history that have a similar format.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. You said I was just like a crazy person ranting on a street corner. If you didn't intend to sound hostile, you did a very poor job of communicating.
- nonbel 8y ago
  People have told me similar about other topics and I learned from it. I interpreted it as a fact about how just claiming something is wrong appears to some people. The doomsday aspect definately accentuates it though.

lifeformed 8y ago

The facts are a keystroke away, plain as day, shouted for years upon deaf ears. People who ask you to Google for them these answers aren't arguing in good faith. There's nothing left to debate, the details were figured out a long time ago. At this point, I'm convinced that there are zero climate skeptics who really want to find answers; it's all willful ignorance or malice. It's comically stupid how the obvious truth is met with so much resistance. The desire to preserve the status quo is the strongest force in civilization. On one side you have 99.9% of scientists saying that we're screwed. On the other side you have 0.1% of scientists paid by oil megacorp lobbyists saying it's fine. Hmm... what should one conclude? On one hand you have politicians and the ultrarich saying everything is okay. on the other hand, the same politicians and rich people are quietly buying safe houses and building seawalls and preparing for doomsday. Oh and the military is training for and developing technologies to deal with the new scenarios. Hmm... what could it mean? We're boiling alive fast enough that we can't handle it, but slow enough that we won't do anything about it. The last two people on earth are going to die arguing about why it's so hot.

nonbel 8y ago
It isn't about facts or "truth" or "99.9% of scientists saying" we are screwed. That isn't how science/engineering works, its how politics works. Perhaps that is why there is difficulty communicating across the gap. Do you have a source for that last one by the way (99.9 % of scientists saying we are screwed)?
- lifeformed 8y ago
  Info: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/027046761770707... And the paper itself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl...
  - nonbel 8y ago
    Can you quote the part of the paper where you think it claims "99.9% of scientists [are] saying that we're screwed." I just looked and didn't see it.