4 ms·

I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of d

I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". So yes, they are deniers. If they don't like it, they should start arguing properly, or admit that they're wrong. You know, like scientists do.

iuguy 16y ago
To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either side. There's theories and evidence to support either direction. It's not a binary it is or it isn't happening thing. It's not a binary we cause it, we don't cause it thing. The problem with the debate is that it becomes a religion to both sides.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  It can and does apply to both sides. I have some "greenie" friends who are pathologically opposed to any sort of development, as well as a couple who are full-bore climate deniers. Neither group are particularly well informed on the issues. However, it does seem that in most issues like this, and with climate change and evolution in particular, the non-science side seems to be particularly stubborn and bloody minded (perhaps because they don't have any evidence, and have to fall back on rhetoric). Even asking one pretty simple question gets you posts and posts of chatbot-esqe evasion and denial: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867623 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867623
  - iuguy 16y ago
    In answer to your second point. There's scientific evidence to support both assertions. There's a really good infographic floating around that sums up the case for and against and what the scientists behind each side believe. However I can't find it. If I remember correctly, much of the pro climate change case is based on core samples, tree rings and satellite recordings of air temperatures. The case against is centred on actual drops in temperature recorded and the absorption of CO2, so there's science for both sides and evidence for both sides. For your final point and link I'm not sure what you're trying to show me. You seem like a pretty rational guy in our discussion, but come across as fairly irrational (perhaps unstructured would be better) in the other sub-thread. It's clear lzw responded because of your style of argument, I think in his first comment his first point leads to the last and he's pretty much spot on, but in his last point he falls into the very same trap you did.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temperature records - support it. I'm quite happy to take a look if you can find it. The point with that link is that even when asked a straightforward question on the one piece of evidence (a non peer reviewed paper) that's been put forward so far, nobody wants to actually answer it. They'd much rather dodge and weave and pull out the same old tired talking points about how things are getting colder, we're overdue for an ice age, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, what does that have to do with the originally cited paper? Not sure what makes me come across as unstructured, either. Perhaps I'm just too used to arguing these points, so I'm "talking" a bit fast?
      - iuguy 16y ago
        I think perhaps you're unaware of your emotional investment in the argument. I can tell this is something you're passionate about. Unfortunately in that argument your passion is working against you.
        16y ago

iuguy 16y ago

To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either side. There's theories and evidence to support either direction. It's not a binary it is or it isn't happening thing. It's not a binary we cause it, we don't cause it thing. The problem with the debate is that it becomes a religion to both sides.

anthonyb 16y ago
It can and does apply to both sides. I have some "greenie" friends who are pathologically opposed to any sort of development, as well as a couple who are full-bore climate deniers. Neither group are particularly well informed on the issues. However, it does seem that in most issues like this, and with climate change and evolution in particular, the non-science side seems to be particularly stubborn and bloody minded (perhaps because they don't have any evidence, and have to fall back on rhetoric). Even asking one pretty simple question gets you posts and posts of chatbot-esqe evasion and denial: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867623 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867623
- iuguy 16y ago
  In answer to your second point. There's scientific evidence to support both assertions. There's a really good infographic floating around that sums up the case for and against and what the scientists behind each side believe. However I can't find it. If I remember correctly, much of the pro climate change case is based on core samples, tree rings and satellite recordings of air temperatures. The case against is centred on actual drops in temperature recorded and the absorption of CO2, so there's science for both sides and evidence for both sides. For your final point and link I'm not sure what you're trying to show me. You seem like a pretty rational guy in our discussion, but come across as fairly irrational (perhaps unstructured would be better) in the other sub-thread. It's clear lzw responded because of your style of argument, I think in his first comment his first point leads to the last and he's pretty much spot on, but in his last point he falls into the very same trap you did.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temperature records - support it. I'm quite happy to take a look if you can find it. The point with that link is that even when asked a straightforward question on the one piece of evidence (a non peer reviewed paper) that's been put forward so far, nobody wants to actually answer it. They'd much rather dodge and weave and pull out the same old tired talking points about how things are getting colder, we're overdue for an ice age, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, what does that have to do with the originally cited paper? Not sure what makes me come across as unstructured, either. Perhaps I'm just too used to arguing these points, so I'm "talking" a bit fast?
    - iuguy 16y ago
      I think perhaps you're unaware of your emotional investment in the argument. I can tell this is something you're passionate about. Unfortunately in that argument your passion is working against you.
      - 16y ago