6 ms·

"Yet as soon as you dig, the "scientific arguments" evaporate. For a beautiful example of this, see the comment I just wrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/ite

"Yet as soon as you dig, the "scientific arguments" evaporate. For a beautiful example of this, see the comment I just wrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189 . " The opposing side has just the same experience with the arguments and papers from your side - there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side. You are just cherry picking and practicing confirmation bias (see, another paper refuted, so my side must be right). In fact the "95% of scientists agree" is just such an example - if you look into it, the number becomes very questionable. And once people see one of your arguments is shoddy, why should they give your other arguments the benefit of the doubt? And your answer, as well as the comment you were replying to: it might as well all just be gibberish, for someone who isn't a climate scientist. And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" - which is presumably true, but people don't seem to agree on the extent of it. And other factors seem to affect it, too. Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? I tend to believe it, too. But that is because I was taught it does back in high school, 35 years ago. Maybe it actually was bullshit already back then, but as a teenager, I didn't know that what teachers said could be questioned. I don't think any of us has done an actual experiment trapping heat with CO2...

WA 7y ago
> there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side Name a few please. > Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? Same reason why we believe radiation is bad for people. Nobody of us has done any actual experiments on splitting atoms. But some people do. They published the results. They can be verified and reproduced. It's called science.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  "Name a few please." I already mentioned the Cook paper that gave us the "97% consensus" number. (Edit: for completeness sake, here is an article debunking the number. I haven't read it and don't know if it has any merit, it is just the first Google result. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_9... - the point stands, though, that you can find articles refuting pretty much anything you want, these days). Other than that, I didn't keep track, and I only encounter such discussions randomly every now and then. I would wager a guess, that you could find a counter reaction for most important climate science papers. Just google for them. "But some people do. They published the results. They can be verified and reproduced. It's called science. " In principle, yes, but your idea of science is highly idealized. In reality, most things are not as established and as verified as you believe them to be. Politics, egos, all sorts of things play a part. If you look back in history, there are many cases where people believed wrong things until their main representatives died, for example. Also one problem with climate science is presumably that you can not simply do experiments to verify its claims. That might a huge part of the problem. Again it mostly boils down to trust - trusting the scientists who do the verifying, trusting the institutions who employ and endorse the scientists. What you and climate doomsayers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust. That doesn't mean all science is false. But it makes it harder to find the truth.
  - WA 7y ago
    Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to have any impact". Or you could argue that common sense is: "If you take too many shits in your environment, they'll come and bite you back sooner or later." I actually think the latter is more reasonable. It's quite tangible. Do you even realize how exchangeable your last 4 paragraphs are? See: What you and climate change deniers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view [that they are actually responsible for pollution] with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust [so they pick obscure papers, obscure individuals and claim that they are right and climate change is not a real thing, or at least not caused by humans]. > But it makes it harder to find the truth. For sure, but as an individual, you don't need to find the absolute truth. There is a very simple idea in protecting the environment: If you try to be resourceful and protect your environment, it probably has more benefits than exploiting the environment and polluting it. It simply doesn't matter whether climate science is right or not. Reducing pollution is always something worth fighting for, no matter if it has any effects on the global climate.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      I'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race". I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways. However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment. If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. The extremism is the problem.
      - WA 7y ago
        Who claims "extinction of the human race"? I don’t think this is what is claimed by serious scientists. > However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. Which one are you talking about? The simulator website that this HN thread links to actually names taxes/subsidies and renewable energies that are already around as the most effective levers to keep temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. > If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. Doesn’t explain why existing technology is still subsidized and renewable energy is not. Doesn’t explain why meat production and livestock factories are subsidized, or at least not taxed more. Eating less meat is one lever. Achievable by taxes. No side effects, no unproven technologies. For example, in Germany, meat is taxed at 7%. Why? Why not 19%? This has nothing to do with being extreme. It’s a reasonable thing to implement. So, please name the extreme things that you are afraid of.
svara 7y ago
> The opposing side has just the same experience with the arguments and papers from your side - there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side. You are just cherry picking and practicing confirmation bias I was doing the literal opposite of cherry-picking, I was digging into the arguments as they were presented to me. So far nothing has held up. If you can give me an argument with a proper source I'll happily look into that as well. > In fact the "95% of scientists agree" is just such an example - if you look into it, the number becomes very questionable. A very poor example on many levels. 1) This statement is fundamentally irrelevant to the (scientific) discussion, because it does not contain a scientific argument. It could be 0%, it could be a 100%, that wouldn't change the validity of any of the scientific arguments presented. Truth isn't measured in mass appeal. 2) Yet, for someone who isn't well informed about a field, putting some trust in the subject matter experts is an OK strategy, and the point that a consensus broadly exists in climate science is correct, and there is support for the precise number of 97%. [0] > And your answer, as well as the comment you were replying to: it might as well all just be gibberish, for someone who isn't a climate scientist. High energy particle physics is mostly gibberish to me, yet I don't go around lecturing people on how it's all wrong. But your point is also wrong: I am not a climate scientist, and the whole discussion can be followed with a bit of high school physics, chemistry and biology, plus Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Your next point shows that you were unwilling to put in that effort, but it isn't actually that hard ... > And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" It absolutely does not, I was addressing a very specific point about how historic CO2 levels are measured. > Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? Because you too can do things like look up the absorption spectrum for CO2 [1] or even do an experiment like [2] yourself. [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:CO2_H2O_absorption_atmospheric_gases_unique_pattern_energy_wavelengths_of_energy_transparent_to_others.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:... [2] https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1987255 https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1987255
- adventskalender 7y ago
  "I was doing the literal opposite of cherry-picking, I was digging into the arguments as they were presented to me. So far nothing has held up. If you can give me an argument with a proper source I'll happily look into that as well." Again, that is exactly how your opponents feel. " there is support for the precise number of 97%. [0]" You are merely appealing to authority. I already told you why I think the number is questionable, yet you keep at it. All your reference tells me is that the NASA is not an honest player in the debate and can't be trusted. Since I already looked into the papers that produced the consensus numbers, yet NASA chooses to use the numbers anyway. Since I have to assume NASA has the capacity to understand those papers, I have to assume they choose to selectively quote them out of political motivation. So they don't count as honest scientists anymore. (Honest Scientist = people who are dedicated to finding the truth, not just in validating their beliefs). And it very much contains a scientific argument, by proxy - since we can only trust the scientists, not verify their claims, if you claim the scientists support your arguments, you are making the claim that your arguments are backed by science. It is very relevant. It may also be one of the most cited claims in the whole debate. "High energy particle physics is mostly gibberish to me, yet I don't go around lecturing people on how it's all wrong." But you also don't go around and educate people on particle physics. There are no stakes for most of us (unless you count the cost in tax payer money for building particle accelerators). Not the same with CO2. "> And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" It absolutely does not, I was addressing a very specific point about how historic CO2 levels are measured." Yes you did, all you said is "we know how CO2 works", "we know" was your entire argument: "Importantly, of course, none of this is really that relevant to the discussion of anthropogenic global warming, since we know that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat." "the whole discussion can be followed with a bit of high school physics, chemistry and biology, plus Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Your next point shows that you were unwilling to put in that effort, but it isn't actually that hard" Oh so you claim the authority of a climate scientist now, because it is oh such a simple subject? You took some high school physics, Wikipedia, and now you are an expert on climate? I don't think anybody doubts that CO2 can trap heat in principle. But going from that to a doomsday scenario is a little bit more complex.

WA 7y ago

> there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side Name a few please. > Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? Same reason why we believe radiation is bad for people. Nobody of us has done any actual experiments on splitting atoms. But some people do. They published the results. They can be verified and reproduced. It's called science.

adventskalender 7y ago
"Name a few please." I already mentioned the Cook paper that gave us the "97% consensus" number. (Edit: for completeness sake, here is an article debunking the number. I haven't read it and don't know if it has any merit, it is just the first Google result. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_9... - the point stands, though, that you can find articles refuting pretty much anything you want, these days). Other than that, I didn't keep track, and I only encounter such discussions randomly every now and then. I would wager a guess, that you could find a counter reaction for most important climate science papers. Just google for them. "But some people do. They published the results. They can be verified and reproduced. It's called science. " In principle, yes, but your idea of science is highly idealized. In reality, most things are not as established and as verified as you believe them to be. Politics, egos, all sorts of things play a part. If you look back in history, there are many cases where people believed wrong things until their main representatives died, for example. Also one problem with climate science is presumably that you can not simply do experiments to verify its claims. That might a huge part of the problem. Again it mostly boils down to trust - trusting the scientists who do the verifying, trusting the institutions who employ and endorse the scientists. What you and climate doomsayers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust. That doesn't mean all science is false. But it makes it harder to find the truth.
- WA 7y ago
  Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to have any impact". Or you could argue that common sense is: "If you take too many shits in your environment, they'll come and bite you back sooner or later." I actually think the latter is more reasonable. It's quite tangible. Do you even realize how exchangeable your last 4 paragraphs are? See: What you and climate change deniers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view [that they are actually responsible for pollution] with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust [so they pick obscure papers, obscure individuals and claim that they are right and climate change is not a real thing, or at least not caused by humans]. > But it makes it harder to find the truth. For sure, but as an individual, you don't need to find the absolute truth. There is a very simple idea in protecting the environment: If you try to be resourceful and protect your environment, it probably has more benefits than exploiting the environment and polluting it. It simply doesn't matter whether climate science is right or not. Reducing pollution is always something worth fighting for, no matter if it has any effects on the global climate.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    I'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race". I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways. However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment. If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. The extremism is the problem.
    - WA 7y ago
      Who claims "extinction of the human race"? I don’t think this is what is claimed by serious scientists. > However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. Which one are you talking about? The simulator website that this HN thread links to actually names taxes/subsidies and renewable energies that are already around as the most effective levers to keep temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. > If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. Doesn’t explain why existing technology is still subsidized and renewable energy is not. Doesn’t explain why meat production and livestock factories are subsidized, or at least not taxed more. Eating less meat is one lever. Achievable by taxes. No side effects, no unproven technologies. For example, in Germany, meat is taxed at 7%. Why? Why not 19%? This has nothing to do with being extreme. It’s a reasonable thing to implement. So, please name the extreme things that you are afraid of.

svara 7y ago

> The opposing side has just the same experience with the arguments and papers from your side - there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side. You are just cherry picking and practicing confirmation bias I was doing the literal opposite of cherry-picking, I was digging into the arguments as they were presented to me. So far nothing has held up. If you can give me an argument with a proper source I'll happily look into that as well. > In fact the "95% of scientists agree" is just such an example - if you look into it, the number becomes very questionable. A very poor example on many levels. 1) This statement is fundamentally irrelevant to the (scientific) discussion, because it does not contain a scientific argument. It could be 0%, it could be a 100%, that wouldn't change the validity of any of the scientific arguments presented. Truth isn't measured in mass appeal. 2) Yet, for someone who isn't well informed about a field, putting some trust in the subject matter experts is an OK strategy, and the point that a consensus broadly exists in climate science is correct, and there is support for the precise number of 97%. [0] > And your answer, as well as the comment you were replying to: it might as well all just be gibberish, for someone who isn't a climate scientist. High energy particle physics is mostly gibberish to me, yet I don't go around lecturing people on how it's all wrong. But your point is also wrong: I am not a climate scientist, and the whole discussion can be followed with a bit of high school physics, chemistry and biology, plus Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Your next point shows that you were unwilling to put in that effort, but it isn't actually that hard ... > And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" It absolutely does not, I was addressing a very specific point about how historic CO2 levels are measured. > Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? Because you too can do things like look up the absorption spectrum for CO2 [1] or even do an experiment like [2] yourself. [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:CO2_H2O_absorption_atmospheric_gases_unique_pattern_energy_wavelengths_of_energy_transparent_to_others.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:... [2] https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1987255 https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1987255

adventskalender 7y ago
"I was doing the literal opposite of cherry-picking, I was digging into the arguments as they were presented to me. So far nothing has held up. If you can give me an argument with a proper source I'll happily look into that as well." Again, that is exactly how your opponents feel. " there is support for the precise number of 97%. [0]" You are merely appealing to authority. I already told you why I think the number is questionable, yet you keep at it. All your reference tells me is that the NASA is not an honest player in the debate and can't be trusted. Since I already looked into the papers that produced the consensus numbers, yet NASA chooses to use the numbers anyway. Since I have to assume NASA has the capacity to understand those papers, I have to assume they choose to selectively quote them out of political motivation. So they don't count as honest scientists anymore. (Honest Scientist = people who are dedicated to finding the truth, not just in validating their beliefs). And it very much contains a scientific argument, by proxy - since we can only trust the scientists, not verify their claims, if you claim the scientists support your arguments, you are making the claim that your arguments are backed by science. It is very relevant. It may also be one of the most cited claims in the whole debate. "High energy particle physics is mostly gibberish to me, yet I don't go around lecturing people on how it's all wrong." But you also don't go around and educate people on particle physics. There are no stakes for most of us (unless you count the cost in tax payer money for building particle accelerators). Not the same with CO2. "> And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" It absolutely does not, I was addressing a very specific point about how historic CO2 levels are measured." Yes you did, all you said is "we know how CO2 works", "we know" was your entire argument: "Importantly, of course, none of this is really that relevant to the discussion of anthropogenic global warming, since we know that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat." "the whole discussion can be followed with a bit of high school physics, chemistry and biology, plus Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Your next point shows that you were unwilling to put in that effort, but it isn't actually that hard" Oh so you claim the authority of a climate scientist now, because it is oh such a simple subject? You took some high school physics, Wikipedia, and now you are an expert on climate? I don't think anybody doubts that CO2 can trap heat in principle. But going from that to a doomsday scenario is a little bit more complex.