5 ms·

Was previously posted and then flagged. I fail to see why: the discussion in the thread seems rather amiable to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=239475

Was previously posted and then flagged. I fail to see why: the discussion in the thread seems rather amiable to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23947594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23947594

_Microft 6y ago
The ones who flag will not be the same who are discussing. Maybe they find it uninteresting, annoying because the topic has been discussed earlier or just do not want to hear what's being said (Friedrich von Schiller (a german writer), once said that "even the most pious man can't live in peace if their neighbour doesn't like it".)
aaron695 6y ago
"New projections show high tides subsuming much of Vietnam by 2050 — including most of the Mekong Delta, now home to 18 million people " One bores with lies like this, but it is true people normally don't care on this topic when lied to, it's more about the dystopian dopamine rush. Commentary on this ridiculous high tide claim- https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1191021723644301312 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1191021723644301312
- _Microft 6y ago
  Is this someone [0] one actually wants to refer to? From his Wikipedia page [0]: Several of Bjørn Lomborg's articles in newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph have been checked by Climate Feedback, a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change media coverage. The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility ranged between "low" and "very low". The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking", in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning", in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements", and, in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy. He also misrepresents the Paris Agreement to downplay its potential to curb future climate change." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
  - aaron695 6y ago
    I'd prefer you referred to the stunningly different map he shows compared to the one NY Times showed. It's not a lie. If you genuinely want to know more about Bjorn Lomborg watch his really old TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_global_priorities_bigger_than_climate_change?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_global_priorities_bi... If you've ever hung out in remote villages and seen crippled children crawling around because of lack of micro-nutrients, you won't have proof he is correct that micro-nutrients are one of the leading issue in this world, but you'd be at least much more empathetic to the idea. I've never see anyone else actually sit down and rank issue to cost benefit like he has. The Copenhagen Consensus have revised their list of issues since the original old TED talk.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      How can either map be “a lie?” They’re projections. There’s ample groups with solid scientific credentials that Lomborg lacks. Lomborg famous book was found, by a well respected watchdog group, to be “scientifically dishonest,” with the addendum that he was unqualified to make the claims he does. There really is little to be gained from absorbing his work when there’s plenty of better sources that don’t engage in his well-documented intellectual dishonesty.
mhh__ 6y ago
I think there is an underbelly of a few nasty people on HN who seem to consistently pop up on threads about things like welfare and climate change. I don't know if that was why it was flagged but HN seems to be the only place I regularly see climate scepticism (similarly to how on every physics thread there is always someone with a pet theory or complaint about academic physics)

_Microft 6y ago

The ones who flag will not be the same who are discussing. Maybe they find it uninteresting, annoying because the topic has been discussed earlier or just do not want to hear what's being said (Friedrich von Schiller (a german writer), once said that "even the most pious man can't live in peace if their neighbour doesn't like it".)

aaron695 6y ago

"New projections show high tides subsuming much of Vietnam by 2050 — including most of the Mekong Delta, now home to 18 million people " One bores with lies like this, but it is true people normally don't care on this topic when lied to, it's more about the dystopian dopamine rush. Commentary on this ridiculous high tide claim- https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1191021723644301312 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1191021723644301312

_Microft 6y ago
Is this someone [0] one actually wants to refer to? From his Wikipedia page [0]: Several of Bjørn Lomborg's articles in newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph have been checked by Climate Feedback, a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change media coverage. The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility ranged between "low" and "very low". The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking", in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning", in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements", and, in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy. He also misrepresents the Paris Agreement to downplay its potential to curb future climate change." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
- aaron695 6y ago
  I'd prefer you referred to the stunningly different map he shows compared to the one NY Times showed. It's not a lie. If you genuinely want to know more about Bjorn Lomborg watch his really old TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_global_priorities_bigger_than_climate_change?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_global_priorities_bi... If you've ever hung out in remote villages and seen crippled children crawling around because of lack of micro-nutrients, you won't have proof he is correct that micro-nutrients are one of the leading issue in this world, but you'd be at least much more empathetic to the idea. I've never see anyone else actually sit down and rank issue to cost benefit like he has. The Copenhagen Consensus have revised their list of issues since the original old TED talk.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    How can either map be “a lie?” They’re projections. There’s ample groups with solid scientific credentials that Lomborg lacks. Lomborg famous book was found, by a well respected watchdog group, to be “scientifically dishonest,” with the addendum that he was unqualified to make the claims he does. There really is little to be gained from absorbing his work when there’s plenty of better sources that don’t engage in his well-documented intellectual dishonesty.

mhh__ 6y ago

I think there is an underbelly of a few nasty people on HN who seem to consistently pop up on threads about things like welfare and climate change. I don't know if that was why it was flagged but HN seems to be the only place I regularly see climate scepticism (similarly to how on every physics thread there is always someone with a pet theory or complaint about academic physics)