3 ms·

Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming." Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."

graeme 8y ago
Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud. If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  >If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact. And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...
  - graeme 8y ago
    I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email... The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts. Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it. Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then say "see, nobody has found any holes!".
  - dang 8y ago
    You've been getting involved in a lot of flamewars on HN. That's not what this site is for. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you again, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. The intention is intellectual curiosity, not ideological battle.
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      Again, if you want to alter behavior you need to be clear about what the behavior you oppose is. This is my understanding of a flamewar: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html I have not engaged in anything like that, so I can not stop engaging in it. If what you mean is "don't post views that you think may not be in line with the majority of HN posters" then say so. If you want a far-left only site, then put that in the rules and save yourself the hassle of dealing with people who naively believe the site is what the guidelines say it is. If the intention is intellectual curiosity, then why is slandering people who present facts that some people don't want to hear acceptable? Who is learning from that? Yet pointing out that mathematicians have confirmed that the global warming models used to push the chicken little hysteria are based on incorrect math is not something that anyone could learn from? That is a "flamewar"?

graeme 8y ago

Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud. If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.

fromthestart 8y ago
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact. And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...
- graeme 8y ago
  I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email... The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts. Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it. Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.
agsdfgsd 8y ago
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then say "see, nobody has found any holes!".
- dang 8y ago
  You've been getting involved in a lot of flamewars on HN. That's not what this site is for. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you again, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. The intention is intellectual curiosity, not ideological battle.
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    Again, if you want to alter behavior you need to be clear about what the behavior you oppose is. This is my understanding of a flamewar: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html I have not engaged in anything like that, so I can not stop engaging in it. If what you mean is "don't post views that you think may not be in line with the majority of HN posters" then say so. If you want a far-left only site, then put that in the rules and save yourself the hassle of dealing with people who naively believe the site is what the guidelines say it is. If the intention is intellectual curiosity, then why is slandering people who present facts that some people don't want to hear acceptable? Who is learning from that? Yet pointing out that mathematicians have confirmed that the global warming models used to push the chicken little hysteria are based on incorrect math is not something that anyone could learn from? That is a "flamewar"?