4 ms·

No, you're mixing up necessary and sufficient. This being a definitive demonstration doesn't make it the only definitive reason to accept climate change - there

No, you're mixing up necessary and sufficient. This being a definitive demonstration doesn't make it the only definitive reason to accept climate change - there was already plenty of good-enough evidence.

zamadatix 5y ago
I don't think the problem is on the "evidence of climate change" side, I think there is plenty inclusive or exclusive of this single event. The issue with the claim "climate change literally just burnt down a town" is cities have and will burn downe pre/post climate change so even overwhelming evidence of climate change is not proof that climate change caused this particular city to burn.
- moistly 5y ago
  I think when three people correct you, it is time to consider that one might not be correct.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    It's the top response to a comment on an _extremely_ charged issue and has had at least a dozen direct engagements. 3 disagreements is a lot less than I expected to be honest, particularly when all 3 are about something different. I fully expected -5 karma and 5 comments saying the same <x> in the morning because I missed something obvious. Of the responses tshaddox probably had the best point that the comment focused a bit to much on talking general climate change points before it got to the meat of the response to the actual comment. jacquesm probably said what I was aiming to try to say best out of anything in the entire parent thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27704578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27704578 and he avoids my mistake right out of the gate. Regardless "# of HN commentors disagreeing with you" probably isn't a good measure of not being correct or a good goal post to monitor. Best to assume it's exceedingly, exceptionally (impossibly?), rare you ever have the fully correct picture and you have keep the understanding you'll need to grow your view with new data as you discuss. Even if you have 50 straight responses that agree someone will agree but add something you hadn't considered.

zamadatix 5y ago

I don't think the problem is on the "evidence of climate change" side, I think there is plenty inclusive or exclusive of this single event. The issue with the claim "climate change literally just burnt down a town" is cities have and will burn downe pre/post climate change so even overwhelming evidence of climate change is not proof that climate change caused this particular city to burn.

moistly 5y ago
I think when three people correct you, it is time to consider that one might not be correct.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  It's the top response to a comment on an _extremely_ charged issue and has had at least a dozen direct engagements. 3 disagreements is a lot less than I expected to be honest, particularly when all 3 are about something different. I fully expected -5 karma and 5 comments saying the same <x> in the morning because I missed something obvious. Of the responses tshaddox probably had the best point that the comment focused a bit to much on talking general climate change points before it got to the meat of the response to the actual comment. jacquesm probably said what I was aiming to try to say best out of anything in the entire parent thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27704578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27704578 and he avoids my mistake right out of the gate. Regardless "# of HN commentors disagreeing with you" probably isn't a good measure of not being correct or a good goal post to monitor. Best to assume it's exceedingly, exceptionally (impossibly?), rare you ever have the fully correct picture and you have keep the understanding you'll need to grow your view with new data as you discuss. Even if you have 50 straight responses that agree someone will agree but add something you hadn't considered.