5 ms·

If you read an article citing the conclusions of an international group with 15,000+ experts in their respective field, many member nations and their scientific

If you read an article citing the conclusions of an international group with 15,000+ experts in their respective field, many member nations and their scientific establishment, etc, and you believe some random comment by some random guy on the internet adds "clarity", you need to really reconsider how you evaluate information. This is how we ended up in the situations of enormous ignorance in the climate change and immunization realms, as if scientific rigour, consensus, statistical and foundational fact, etc, are all contentious the moment some random blowhard gives their opinion.

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.
- magicalist 7y ago
  > While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism. I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.
  - yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
    Neither do I. That’s why I didn’t suggest that.
- endorphone 7y ago
  Sure, if the root post analyzed the study, or even did the most cursory skim of it, and pointed out how the article differed from its conclusions, that would be valuable. They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear. https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-2019.pdf https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB) There's the actual study. The BBC article is pretty accurate in its summary.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    The article title is even not accurate with the contents. Why must the GP dig any deeper?
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Because they dismiss the whole article because of the title and then try to dismiss the article with irrelevant topics.
marcosdumay 7y ago
The article is written by a single journalist, and clearly sensationalist. What does it matter he quotes 15000 experts if he intentionally distorts what they say? That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity.
- endorphone 7y ago
  What did he distort? What is sensationalist? This claim has been made multiple times, and the single example has been a misunderstanding of the English language (e.g. "running out"). "That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity." That random comment that inserted non-fact, dismissed essentially the entire report...yeah, no, it added just noise. Oh look now the root comment instead of just blanket dismissing global warming entirely has now listed a small sub-summary dealing just with run-off. This is a classic denialist tactic, just moving the fence posts enough, pretending to actually be considering the science.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    The expect he quoted on Global Warming reducing the oxygen on the water found it all causes a 2% change. How's 98% for running out? All the of problem discussed on the article comes from the widespread dispersion of local pollution. The journalist is at the same time lying about a problem where there isn't any and hiding a huge problem that can be solved if people focus on it.
taxidump 7y ago
That "blowhard" has added more to this discussion than you have with this comment. Would you like to counter his position, or just call names?
- endorphone 7y ago
  Okay. Clearly this discussion has drawn in the HN crank squad of denialist and anti-science nuts, so I'll cede this to them.
  - taxidump 7y ago
    Maybe the reason you are getting pushback is your tactic of insults. Blowhard, HN crank squad and anti-science nuts... The best way to represent a position here is through dialog, not name calling. Emotional jabs tend to undermine your argument.
    - jcims 7y ago
      Snark is going to be the end of us. It simultaneously provides a dopamine rush to the snarker, a flash of anger in the snarkee, completely destroys any context of understanding or potential for vulnerability and change. Everyone just goes shield up and battles. We have the greatest interpersonal communication capability the world has ever seen and we piss it away on insults.
    - irq11 7y ago
      Anti-science denialists use pearl-clutching to slow down truth while their lies zip around the world. It’s gotten to the point on HN where the “highbrow lowbrow” is dominating all discussion, because you can’t outright call a lie a lie here. It wouldn’t be “polite”. But it’s pretty easy to toss off a quick, thoughtless dismissal of any particular subject that sounds smart and polite.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  He “added” a big pile of misinformation[1]. If I add three paragraphs of speculation about how deoxygenation is actually caused by vaccines am I also “adding to this discussion”? [1] as documented by NeedBigTea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago

While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.

magicalist 7y ago
> While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism. I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
  Neither do I. That’s why I didn’t suggest that.
endorphone 7y ago
Sure, if the root post analyzed the study, or even did the most cursory skim of it, and pointed out how the article differed from its conclusions, that would be valuable. They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear. https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-2019.pdf https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB) There's the actual study. The BBC article is pretty accurate in its summary.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  The article title is even not accurate with the contents. Why must the GP dig any deeper?
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Because they dismiss the whole article because of the title and then try to dismiss the article with irrelevant topics.

marcosdumay 7y ago

The article is written by a single journalist, and clearly sensationalist. What does it matter he quotes 15000 experts if he intentionally distorts what they say? That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity.

endorphone 7y ago
What did he distort? What is sensationalist? This claim has been made multiple times, and the single example has been a misunderstanding of the English language (e.g. "running out"). "That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity." That random comment that inserted non-fact, dismissed essentially the entire report...yeah, no, it added just noise. Oh look now the root comment instead of just blanket dismissing global warming entirely has now listed a small sub-summary dealing just with run-off. This is a classic denialist tactic, just moving the fence posts enough, pretending to actually be considering the science.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  The expect he quoted on Global Warming reducing the oxygen on the water found it all causes a 2% change. How's 98% for running out? All the of problem discussed on the article comes from the widespread dispersion of local pollution. The journalist is at the same time lying about a problem where there isn't any and hiding a huge problem that can be solved if people focus on it.

taxidump 7y ago

That "blowhard" has added more to this discussion than you have with this comment. Would you like to counter his position, or just call names?

endorphone 7y ago
Okay. Clearly this discussion has drawn in the HN crank squad of denialist and anti-science nuts, so I'll cede this to them.
- taxidump 7y ago
  Maybe the reason you are getting pushback is your tactic of insults. Blowhard, HN crank squad and anti-science nuts... The best way to represent a position here is through dialog, not name calling. Emotional jabs tend to undermine your argument.
  - jcims 7y ago
    Snark is going to be the end of us. It simultaneously provides a dopamine rush to the snarker, a flash of anger in the snarkee, completely destroys any context of understanding or potential for vulnerability and change. Everyone just goes shield up and battles. We have the greatest interpersonal communication capability the world has ever seen and we piss it away on insults.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Anti-science denialists use pearl-clutching to slow down truth while their lies zip around the world. It’s gotten to the point on HN where the “highbrow lowbrow” is dominating all discussion, because you can’t outright call a lie a lie here. It wouldn’t be “polite”. But it’s pretty easy to toss off a quick, thoughtless dismissal of any particular subject that sounds smart and polite.
AlexandrB 7y ago
He “added” a big pile of misinformation[1]. If I add three paragraphs of speculation about how deoxygenation is actually caused by vaccines am I also “adding to this discussion”? [1] as documented by NeedBigTea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510