6 ms·
One group of scientists, who can't imagine that their self invented model could be wrong, can't imagine any other reasons than man made changes for the results
by biasedbrain 5y ago
One group of scientists, who can't imagine that their self invented model could be wrong, can't imagine any other reasons than man made changes for the results of their model simulation.
How you get from that to "removes almost all doubt" is beyond me. Such hyperbole does more damage than good.
I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions, so I am sorry, but for me it doesn't remove "almost all doubt".
- jt2190 5y agoIt’s unfortunate when we glom onto the headline and start arguing from there, because (assuming that NBC follows the traditional newsroom workflow) the scientists didn’t write the headline, and the journalist didn’t write the headline, the news editor did, and the news editor wrote the most attention-grabbing (a.k.a. “clickbait”) thing they could. Now maybe if we dig into the article and the paper we’ll see that the headline is really an honest reflection of the content, but I’ll bet it’s not. Edit: The words “remove all doubt” do not occur in the article, just the headline.
- em500 5y agoI don't disagree with you, but but at the same time I think that if the editor used "Anthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance" as the headline, probably nobody would have clicked, let alone read it. Heck, it probably wouldn't have made HN either.
- biasedbrain 5y agoAnd you think it is important that it should have been clicked and read? Why?
- alecst 5y ago>I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions So you didn't read the paper, you don't know who wrote it, and you're commenting on a paraphrase in the headline. What exactly are you contributing to the discussion?
- biasedbrain 5y agoAnnouncing the paper with such hyperbole makes me less likely to want to read it. It just makes it very unlikely to live up to the hype. I wonder if you have read the paper, btw?
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoThis is how deniers argue - latch onto trivial language in the title, and spew doubt. Instead of trying to understand, which would probably scare the pants off of them. So they put blinders on instead.
- torstenvl 5y agoThis is how extremists argue - spew the most outrageous ideas they can get away with, and when they cross the line into obvious lies, they attack the other side for "latching onto trivial language." The editorialization is patently false. You are wasting political capital by defending it.
- loopz 5y agoHow difficult is it to accept that humans affect the planet globally with unprecedented emissions of greenhouse gases?
- torstenvl 5y agoWell... extremely difficult, since all known climate evidence directly contradicts your proposition. 420ppm is not super great, but to call it "unprecedented" takes a mind-blowing quantum of scientific illiteracy. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?
- loopz 5y agoNo need to project your hysterical fears unto others. Your unfounded claims have been thoroughly debunked by skepticalscience.com [1] [2], together with all the other arguments [3]. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm [3] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php