5 ms·

> I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. You claim this, but the rest of your post is primarily about emotio

> I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. You claim this, but the rest of your post is primarily about emotions. You want people to admit they were wrong, as if that makes any difference to the science. > Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct I can't imagine you could find a single scientist who wouldn't admit this, but ironically the example you give, "the ice age predictions of the 70s", is a common myth propagated by global heating deniers. See [0]. > ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) The science is settled. Why do you think it's dumb? [0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...

jessaustin 7y ago
Young people have to rely on appealing arguments to know what was talked about in the 1970s. Older people remember "the coming ice age".
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  I'm old enough to have been around then. There may have been some popular articles about a coming ice age, but I don't remember any sort of consensus in the scientific community about that.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    No I don't think we ever heard of any consensus about that. Was that because climatology was sort of a niche field, or maybe we just didn't think about consensus as much back then?
- chimprich 7y ago
  From the article I cited: "Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember." There may have been more reporting of ice age predictions, but that wasn't what the scientists were saying.
justsubmit 7y ago
You cited skepticalscience.com, which is John Cook's web site. He's a known scientific fraud, behind the paper Cook, et al, which is cited as the source of the "consensus" claim. If you're interested, you can google up information about their fraudulent paper, the conclusion of which they decided before writing it. It's because of claims and citations like yours that people don't believe alarmists. It's dishonest (or ignorant) to cite a fraudulent paper as the source for a claim that the science is settled. Real science is falsifiable and can withstand dissent.
- chimprich 7y ago
  It's not often I use such strong language on HN, but you're talking complete bullshit. There's a lot of evidence for overwhelming consensus on the science of global heating. Starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views... Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    Your reaction shows that we have reached the crux of the matter. Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him, his paper, and his Web site. (You probably won't find much about it on Wikipedia, of course.) And the lies are nothing new. For example, Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. It's been going on for decades. > Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority. All the science that's been proven correct was once an extreme minority view. An argument based on the number of people who believe something is not a scientific argument. And why would you make an unscientific argument about a scientific issue?
    - chimprich 7y ago
      > Don't take my word for it. I won't. I want peer-reviewed science, like the vastly significant body of research that has been produced showing AGW. > You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence. > Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.

jessaustin 7y ago

Young people have to rely on appealing arguments to know what was talked about in the 1970s. Older people remember "the coming ice age".

amanaplanacanal 7y ago
I'm old enough to have been around then. There may have been some popular articles about a coming ice age, but I don't remember any sort of consensus in the scientific community about that.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  No I don't think we ever heard of any consensus about that. Was that because climatology was sort of a niche field, or maybe we just didn't think about consensus as much back then?
chimprich 7y ago
From the article I cited: "Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember." There may have been more reporting of ice age predictions, but that wasn't what the scientists were saying.

justsubmit 7y ago

You cited skepticalscience.com, which is John Cook's web site. He's a known scientific fraud, behind the paper Cook, et al, which is cited as the source of the "consensus" claim. If you're interested, you can google up information about their fraudulent paper, the conclusion of which they decided before writing it. It's because of claims and citations like yours that people don't believe alarmists. It's dishonest (or ignorant) to cite a fraudulent paper as the source for a claim that the science is settled. Real science is falsifiable and can withstand dissent.

chimprich 7y ago
It's not often I use such strong language on HN, but you're talking complete bullshit. There's a lot of evidence for overwhelming consensus on the science of global heating. Starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views... Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.
- justsubmit 7y ago
  Your reaction shows that we have reached the crux of the matter. Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him, his paper, and his Web site. (You probably won't find much about it on Wikipedia, of course.) And the lies are nothing new. For example, Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. It's been going on for decades. > Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority. All the science that's been proven correct was once an extreme minority view. An argument based on the number of people who believe something is not a scientific argument. And why would you make an unscientific argument about a scientific issue?
  - chimprich 7y ago
    > Don't take my word for it. I won't. I want peer-reviewed science, like the vastly significant body of research that has been produced showing AGW. > You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence. > Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.