5 ms·

I feel like the topic of CFS is irrelevant to the story. Why is there such toxicity online creating these echochambers. If you point out anything that might qu

I feel like the topic of CFS is irrelevant to the story. Why is there such toxicity online creating these echochambers. If you point out anything that might question climate change for example, you will be called all kinds of names. Nobody looks at the points you are making. Let's test it right now. I'm sure I'll get downvoted and nobody will respond. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Over the last 5 million years temperature has been going down but also becoming more aggressive in the swing in temperature. If you look at the last 20,000 years we are in the standard rapid spike in temps and CO2 and we have NOT spiked any higher than you would expect. The minor spike in CO2 in the last 200 years is a small fraction of the spike over the last 20,000 years. If you look up the Eocene period(after the dinosaurs went extinct). It was 14celcius warmer than today's climate. Life was great back then; Canada/Russia wasn't a frozen wasteland. Climate change is good.

dwaltrip 8y ago
I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency? P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  >I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: I think you've just proven my real point I was making. >Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? What happens when your research provides evidence or an argument that doesnt fit the story of climate change? You get labelled a climate denier and nobody will look at your data 'because it isnt a good use of their time' and the 'consensus' is that you are wrong. Then you never get funding again. >Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency? I'm providing graphs and explaining the graphs. It's a fact that the world was 14celcius warmer in the eocene and had 10x the CO2. There's nothing to rebuttal unless you're going to go after my sources. I picked this on purpose because there is no rebuttal. Anyone reasonable should be able to look at my comments and reasonably look at the data. >P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory. If you read my post again. I literally say it. It's the toxic echo chambers which disallow an alternative viewpoint. I'm right on topic about explaining and showing the echo chamber. Climate change is also not the topic. I challenge you dwaltrip to go into your usual circles and try to argue an alternative option. Devils advocate if you were; just dont tell them you're doing it. Pick whatever subject you like and see how people react to you.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    Saying "there is nothing to rebut" is not a response. You are claiming that the consensus view of climate change has literally nothing to say in response to your points? I find that very hard to believe. Have you done your due diligence and actually searched for any rebuttals?
    - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
      We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine. What is there to rebut? This isn't the point I was making. Climate change doesnt matter. I was illustrating the point of the article. Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism. By definition creating climate deniers. If the climate change folks are correct, and they very likely are correct, the point I was making was perfectly proven just now.
      - dwaltrip 8y ago
        > We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine. > What is there to rebut? The rebuttal would look something like: "The data doesn't mean what you think it does due to X, Y, or Z." Or "Yes, this is true, but you are ignoring these other 10 aspects of the situation, which demand another interpretation". And so on. One piece of data doesn't mean anything by itself. It needs to be put into context and interpreted. This is the hard part, of course. > Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism. The hostility and alarmism is only unjustified if they are wrong about the facts of the matter and how to interpret them, and if the contrarian arguments brought forth are ignored without good reason or in bad faith. So, the particular details do actually matter. It is about climate change. Or whatever other specific topic. In my personal experience, the majority of contrarian arguments for climate change that I have seen have been put forth without due diligence or an understanding of how the argument fits into the broader picture. Which is what you would expect if the reality is that there isn't actually a strong opposing case.
- webXL 8y ago
  How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? The implied direction of the harassment might not be what the OP was talking about, but it's certainly related to the topic. As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good.
  - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
    I will admit it was inflammatory but I had to pick the most contentious subject such that this forum will have the appropriate echo chamber response. If I brought up Michigan state politics, virtually nobody would care.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    > How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? I read the article and didn't notice it. Looking back, it was an offhand mention in a fragment of a single sentence. Clearly not the focus. > As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good. This is a strawman. No one is talking about that kind of climate change.
    - webXL 8y ago
      > Clearly not the focus. But also not wildly off-topic. Every HN discussion brings in all sorts of viewpoints that make it more encompassing of the submission's focus. If something is tangentially related, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. > No one is talking about that kind of climate change. Um, they should be. How else would you answer the question what's the optimal climate if we're trying to mitigate change? Surely if it's not the current climate, then successfully changing the climate to the optimal conditions would be "good" climate change, right?
bjlorenzen 8y ago
Thanks for posting this, I now have a new opinion on climate change :)
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  Certainly not my intention. The take away I want you to have from this comment isn't climate change but the fact that you should be open to looking at evidence from either side of any subject. I'm 100% certain the earth isn't flat. If someone is proposing the earth is flat, you shouldn't call them a moron. You should find out their evidences. Talk to them about their evidences and see if they can change your mind. You are aware of the westboro baptist church law firm where they say inflammatory things like God hates gays to get people to get angry and then they sue the person and press charges for damages. Most people would never talk to these people. However https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_th... By engaging in conversation you can change people. IF you think you are right about flat earth. Talk to them.
vectorEQ 8y ago
it's not good nor bad. that's an opinion, and opinions have no place in the realm of science. that being said. climate change is natural, and has been going on without humans, and will do so after we are long gone
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  There are many things which are scientifically bad. How about all the science that was pro-leaded gasoline? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe This guy created fake science; would this not be scientifically bad? For the record, climate change is not the subject of my post. It was hostility; which the responses to my post proved this.
phonypc 8y ago
You'll be downvoted for being off-topic, excessively contrarian and uttering non-sequiturs. Paleoclimatology bears no relevance to the effects climate change will have on human civilization, and extant life more generally. i.e. it does not follow from the fact that life has (and could again be) adapted to Eocene-like conditions, that "climate change is good".
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  >You'll be downvoted for being off-topic, excessively contrarian and uttering non-sequiturs. Thanks for once again proving my actual point; which had nothing to do with climate change.
  - phonypc 8y ago
    Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. But you were just being a contrarian troll.
    - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
      >Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. No accusations needed. HN is far less likely to be an echo chamber on these subjects; which is why I had to pull a big gun out like climate change; which was referenced multiple times in the article. >But you were just being a contrarian troll. Still further proof of the point of the article. Climate Change A United Nations panel of climate scientists says it is at least 95 percent certain that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change since the mid-20th century. Climate sceptics challenge that consensus daily on social media, arguing that fluctuations in global temperatures have occurred in previous era and are natural events. The article absolutely talked about climate change in depth and even brought up climate skeptics. I simply brought up a single point of discussion. The point of the article is that it has become toxic to talk about subjects like climate change. I simply provided the example and you come call me a troll. Literally proving the point.

dwaltrip 8y ago

I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency? P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
>I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: I think you've just proven my real point I was making. >Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? What happens when your research provides evidence or an argument that doesnt fit the story of climate change? You get labelled a climate denier and nobody will look at your data 'because it isnt a good use of their time' and the 'consensus' is that you are wrong. Then you never get funding again. >Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency? I'm providing graphs and explaining the graphs. It's a fact that the world was 14celcius warmer in the eocene and had 10x the CO2. There's nothing to rebuttal unless you're going to go after my sources. I picked this on purpose because there is no rebuttal. Anyone reasonable should be able to look at my comments and reasonably look at the data. >P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory. If you read my post again. I literally say it. It's the toxic echo chambers which disallow an alternative viewpoint. I'm right on topic about explaining and showing the echo chamber. Climate change is also not the topic. I challenge you dwaltrip to go into your usual circles and try to argue an alternative option. Devils advocate if you were; just dont tell them you're doing it. Pick whatever subject you like and see how people react to you.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Saying "there is nothing to rebut" is not a response. You are claiming that the consensus view of climate change has literally nothing to say in response to your points? I find that very hard to believe. Have you done your due diligence and actually searched for any rebuttals?
  - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
    We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine. What is there to rebut? This isn't the point I was making. Climate change doesnt matter. I was illustrating the point of the article. Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism. By definition creating climate deniers. If the climate change folks are correct, and they very likely are correct, the point I was making was perfectly proven just now.
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      > We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine. > What is there to rebut? The rebuttal would look something like: "The data doesn't mean what you think it does due to X, Y, or Z." Or "Yes, this is true, but you are ignoring these other 10 aspects of the situation, which demand another interpretation". And so on. One piece of data doesn't mean anything by itself. It needs to be put into context and interpreted. This is the hard part, of course. > Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism. The hostility and alarmism is only unjustified if they are wrong about the facts of the matter and how to interpret them, and if the contrarian arguments brought forth are ignored without good reason or in bad faith. So, the particular details do actually matter. It is about climate change. Or whatever other specific topic. In my personal experience, the majority of contrarian arguments for climate change that I have seen have been put forth without due diligence or an understanding of how the argument fits into the broader picture. Which is what you would expect if the reality is that there isn't actually a strong opposing case.
webXL 8y ago
How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? The implied direction of the harassment might not be what the OP was talking about, but it's certainly related to the topic. As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  I will admit it was inflammatory but I had to pick the most contentious subject such that this forum will have the appropriate echo chamber response. If I brought up Michigan state politics, virtually nobody would care.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  > How is this wildly off-topic if the subject of the article is online harassment of scientists, and climate change is specifically mentioned? I read the article and didn't notice it. Looking back, it was an offhand mention in a fragment of a single sentence. Clearly not the focus. > As for the inflammatory bit, you might have a point there, but the kind of climate change that enabled humans to evolve might garner that fabled 97% of backing not only from scientists, but humanity in general. So in the proper context, climate change is good. This is a strawman. No one is talking about that kind of climate change.
  - webXL 8y ago
    > Clearly not the focus. But also not wildly off-topic. Every HN discussion brings in all sorts of viewpoints that make it more encompassing of the submission's focus. If something is tangentially related, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. > No one is talking about that kind of climate change. Um, they should be. How else would you answer the question what's the optimal climate if we're trying to mitigate change? Surely if it's not the current climate, then successfully changing the climate to the optimal conditions would be "good" climate change, right?

bjlorenzen 8y ago

Thanks for posting this, I now have a new opinion on climate change :)

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
Certainly not my intention. The take away I want you to have from this comment isn't climate change but the fact that you should be open to looking at evidence from either side of any subject. I'm 100% certain the earth isn't flat. If someone is proposing the earth is flat, you shouldn't call them a moron. You should find out their evidences. Talk to them about their evidences and see if they can change your mind. You are aware of the westboro baptist church law firm where they say inflammatory things like God hates gays to get people to get angry and then they sue the person and press charges for damages. Most people would never talk to these people. However https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_th... By engaging in conversation you can change people. IF you think you are right about flat earth. Talk to them.

vectorEQ 8y ago

it's not good nor bad. that's an opinion, and opinions have no place in the realm of science. that being said. climate change is natural, and has been going on without humans, and will do so after we are long gone

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
There are many things which are scientifically bad. How about all the science that was pro-leaded gasoline? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe This guy created fake science; would this not be scientifically bad? For the record, climate change is not the subject of my post. It was hostility; which the responses to my post proved this.

phonypc 8y ago

You'll be downvoted for being off-topic, excessively contrarian and uttering non-sequiturs. Paleoclimatology bears no relevance to the effects climate change will have on human civilization, and extant life more generally. i.e. it does not follow from the fact that life has (and could again be) adapted to Eocene-like conditions, that "climate change is good".

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
>You'll be downvoted for being off-topic, excessively contrarian and uttering non-sequiturs. Thanks for once again proving my actual point; which had nothing to do with climate change.
- phonypc 8y ago
  Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. But you were just being a contrarian troll.
  - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
    >Nah. If you had sincerely posted something critical of climate change (on a more relevant article) that wasn't nonsensical at first sight, and were downvoted without being responded to, then sure. Call HN an echo chamber. No accusations needed. HN is far less likely to be an echo chamber on these subjects; which is why I had to pull a big gun out like climate change; which was referenced multiple times in the article. >But you were just being a contrarian troll. Still further proof of the point of the article. Climate Change A United Nations panel of climate scientists says it is at least 95 percent certain that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change since the mid-20th century. Climate sceptics challenge that consensus daily on social media, arguing that fluctuations in global temperatures have occurred in previous era and are natural events. The article absolutely talked about climate change in depth and even brought up climate skeptics. I simply brought up a single point of discussion. The point of the article is that it has become toxic to talk about subjects like climate change. I simply provided the example and you come call me a troll. Literally proving the point.