5 ms·

A BS article for a BS conspiracy blog that reactively attacks any potential point of current climate science. Just stop, please. Every possible attack they po

A BS article for a BS conspiracy blog that reactively attacks any potential point of current climate science. Just stop, please. Every possible attack they post there just gets overshadowed by the titanic obviousness of climate change. They attack the collapse of the ice sheets by claiming that Antarctic sea ice coverage increased. Now that's no longer happening. Crickets. They attack the cause of Antarctic sea ice collapse by claming that temperature flux changes in the Antarctic bed are caused by geothermal activity. Scientists investigate, adjust for this variable, and it's still the fact that the brutal increases in atmospheric and ocean temperature are the cause for the collapse. Crickets. This isn't how honest science works.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
They also cherry-pick data to fit their conclusions, e.g. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-...
skrowl 7y ago
When you outright dismiss arguments that compete with your own (like labeling people with a different opinion than you such as you did here), then you'll never evolve your opinions. Look for ClimateGate on DuckDuckGo. There are leaked emails where they discuss cherry picking results. It's in their own words. Take 15 minutes doing research to DISPROVE man made global warming before you automatically accept it as truth. There's a lot out there.
- mempko 7y ago
  Do they have emails of thousands and thousands of scientists cherry picking results? Or an email from one scientist? how many scientists are cherry picking? All? Some? What's your opinion of the recent leaks from oil companies and their own climate studies? Are the oil companies internal scientists also cherry picking?
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Actually the mails just discuss normal data processing issues, they just sound like cherry picking when taken out of context. https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
    - mempko 7y ago
      Yup! I know, I was just bating him/her because they made little sense.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't. It breaks the site guidelines and makes this place even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        mempko 7y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I'll be more gentle. However, evidence shows reasoned arguments are hardly going to change people's minds. Turns out emotional arguments win more often. This isn't me being nasty and it's not comparable to climate denial, which is an existential threat. If someone believes in conspiracy theories, I'm not going to entertain them in that way, so I'll have to ignore them instead. The fact that this site already has climate denial on every single climate article posted suggests it isn't full of the intelligent people we think our community is and no amount of talk that looks smart is going to change that. Turns out climate denial loves to look smart anyway.
mfatica 7y ago
What are you on about? That's exactly how honest science works. You said it yourself here: > They attack the cause of Antarctic sea ice collapse by claming that temperature flux changes in the Antarctic bed are caused by geothermal activity. Scientists investigate, adjust for this variable, and it's still the fact that the brutal increases in atmospheric and ocean temperature are the cause for the collapse. Crickets. 1. Scientists publish findings on climate science 2. Someone says hey this might be incorrect if you haven't considered X 3. Scientists conduct further research while accounting for X Final result is now more accurate than before the "attacks". It seems to me the position of climate change proponents is that nothing should be questioned. This is not honest science.
- skrowl 7y ago
  Shutting down discussion is the opposite of the scientific method, but global warming alarmists know their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny so it's their default position to just de-platform anyone who is skeptical.
  - digitaltrees 7y ago
    The asymmetric harm that is possible makes skeptics irrational. The downside if we over correct for climate change is wound down or restructured oil companies, restricted products and production, but in exchange there is a cleaner more technologically advanced global society that has the ability to coordinate to address global scale problems and is on a good path to having the social cooperation necessary to colonize space. Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Part of the problem is that many people who are on the right side of climate change support efforts to combat climate change because they’re also in favor of a “global society” and “social cooperation.” If world government isn’t your cup of tea, then the harm isn’t asymmetric. If we’re wrong about climate change, we will have constructed these global, top-down structures that will stamp out what little autonomy and freedom people have left.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

They also cherry-pick data to fit their conclusions, e.g. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-...

skrowl 7y ago

When you outright dismiss arguments that compete with your own (like labeling people with a different opinion than you such as you did here), then you'll never evolve your opinions. Look for ClimateGate on DuckDuckGo. There are leaked emails where they discuss cherry picking results. It's in their own words. Take 15 minutes doing research to DISPROVE man made global warming before you automatically accept it as truth. There's a lot out there.

mempko 7y ago
Do they have emails of thousands and thousands of scientists cherry picking results? Or an email from one scientist? how many scientists are cherry picking? All? Some? What's your opinion of the recent leaks from oil companies and their own climate studies? Are the oil companies internal scientists also cherry picking?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Actually the mails just discuss normal data processing issues, they just sound like cherry picking when taken out of context. https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
  - mempko 7y ago
    Yup! I know, I was just bating him/her because they made little sense.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't. It breaks the site guidelines and makes this place even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - mempko 7y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I'll be more gentle. However, evidence shows reasoned arguments are hardly going to change people's minds. Turns out emotional arguments win more often. This isn't me being nasty and it's not comparable to climate denial, which is an existential threat. If someone believes in conspiracy theories, I'm not going to entertain them in that way, so I'll have to ignore them instead. The fact that this site already has climate denial on every single climate article posted suggests it isn't full of the intelligent people we think our community is and no amount of talk that looks smart is going to change that. Turns out climate denial loves to look smart anyway.

mfatica 7y ago

What are you on about? That's exactly how honest science works. You said it yourself here: > They attack the cause of Antarctic sea ice collapse by claming that temperature flux changes in the Antarctic bed are caused by geothermal activity. Scientists investigate, adjust for this variable, and it's still the fact that the brutal increases in atmospheric and ocean temperature are the cause for the collapse. Crickets. 1. Scientists publish findings on climate science 2. Someone says hey this might be incorrect if you haven't considered X 3. Scientists conduct further research while accounting for X Final result is now more accurate than before the "attacks". It seems to me the position of climate change proponents is that nothing should be questioned. This is not honest science.

skrowl 7y ago
Shutting down discussion is the opposite of the scientific method, but global warming alarmists know their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny so it's their default position to just de-platform anyone who is skeptical.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  The asymmetric harm that is possible makes skeptics irrational. The downside if we over correct for climate change is wound down or restructured oil companies, restricted products and production, but in exchange there is a cleaner more technologically advanced global society that has the ability to coordinate to address global scale problems and is on a good path to having the social cooperation necessary to colonize space. Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Part of the problem is that many people who are on the right side of climate change support efforts to combat climate change because they’re also in favor of a “global society” and “social cooperation.” If world government isn’t your cup of tea, then the harm isn’t asymmetric. If we’re wrong about climate change, we will have constructed these global, top-down structures that will stamp out what little autonomy and freedom people have left.