5 ms·
> Have any of their “predictions” aged well? No, but only in the sense that they've tended to be too conservative and to understate the degree and pace of chan
by jajag 6y ago
> Have any of their “predictions” aged well?
No, but only in the sense that they've tended to be too conservative and to understate the degree and pace of change.
And just to be clear, the paper linked to is a review of weather station data which finds that extreme heat & humidity conditions are occurring sooner and more frequently than models predicted.
- k33n 6y agoWay off. The vast majority of their doom and gloom claims have been completely disproven. Only the woefully ignorant peddle this stuff. It’s perfectly natural for the weather to be extremely hot and humid sometimes.
- Intermernet 6y agohttps://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo... Unless you believe that NASA are in on the whole conspiracy because of, um, some reason I can't even fathom...
- KozmoNau7 6y agoDon't feed the low effort trolls. Downvote, flag and ignore.
- Intermernet 6y agoThe only options available for dealing with misinformed conspiracy theorists are downvoting, flagging, ignoring and rebuttal. The first three are interpreted as validation. It sucks, but that's the reality.
- KozmoNau7 6y agoYou forget about moderation. HN has pretty active moderators who generally come down hard on trolls and bad faith arguments. The troll may see it as validation when their posts are struck down, but that only matters to them, and since they're struck down and banned, it doesn't matter to anyone else. For some cases, I agree that a well-pointed rebuttal can be effective, not to convince the troll, but rather to inform the audience. You cannot convince the troll, but you can show the audience how his arguments are flawed and false. There is a balance, because you also risk giving his posts more attention, which is counterproductive. If possible, take the arguments to a place where the people who are already sympathetic to your arguments are in the majority. Have the discussion on your home turf, don't discuss in forums where the troll has the majority. And obviously know when to disengage. Arguing with a pure bad faith troll is utterly pointless, they'll just keeping spinning bullshit while you try to seat down their nonsense. The takes a lot of effort on your part and absolutely none on theirs. In the process, they get to air even more of their nonsense to an audience. Facts are precise and specific, lies are random, unlimited and don't have to have any connection to truth or reality.
- Intermernet 6y agoYep, but dang and co are quite light on the moderation (which I respect, mostly) so I find rebuttal to be the most likely response to succeed on HN. I think your point regarding showing the audience is the salient one here.
- k33n 6y agoConspiracy? I think it’s mostly incompetence. But I get it’s a touchy subject.
- Intermernet 6y agoIf you think it's incompetence, and you want to correct it, then you need to point to specific points that validate your opinion vs the published opinion of NASA. It's only a touchy subject if you don't have the data to back it up.
- polotics 6y agoThat is one vintage denialist post. I guess once the evidence is all around one can only resort to denying the evidence. Love your usage of "the vast majority". It's the denial that has been disproven