5 ms·

Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people

Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions

scarygliders 5y ago
What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%? What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality. There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters. Compare with: "Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?" No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...
  - mr_mitm 5y ago
    The fixation on the 0.04% is particularly confusing, as the other 99.96% of the atmosphere is mostly completely transparent to the relevant frequencies. Going by volume or ppm is wrong when all we care about is the absorption factor. Greenhouse gases don't absorb less infrared radiation by adding transparent nitrogen, even though it would reduce the greenhouse gas concentration.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions? This is a loaded question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ), since it implies that this question-asking is honest and straightforward. On the contrary, it seems like OP is "jaqing off" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions ); unless, of course, they can absolutely prove 100% that they're acting in good faith.
  - useragent86 5y ago
    Can you absolutely prove 100% that you're acting in good faith?
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      Nope, but that's no matter, since whether or not I am acting in good faith is logically independent of whether OP is jaqing off (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque ). In contrast, OP's hunch about the climate emergency either not existing because the concentration of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is "small" (according to some unspecified criteria), and/or fixing itself due to plant growth, run counter to the consensus position of the world scientific community, and hence the burden of proof is on OP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) It was their choice to raise that burden to the unachievable height of '100% absolute proof' :)
ysavir 5y ago
Doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, it's good practice to validate the conclusions--and to continue doing so regularly. Please don't discourage people from asking for the data and the facts, no matter what your perspective is.
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  Just curious, could somebody explain to me quickly here how computers work, starting from transistors? It seems implausible to me that tiny electrical circuits could be used to produce logical operations. I'm really just asking an honest question, and it's always healthy to revisit the evidence especially when you're making a big claim like "sand does maths".
  - petermcneeley 5y ago
    https://www.tindie.com/products/codecorrect/basic-logic-gates-using-transistors-learning-kit/ https://www.tindie.com/products/codecorrect/basic-logic-gate... And then https://www.nand2tetris.org/ https://www.nand2tetris.org/

Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions

scarygliders 5y ago

What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?

MauranKilom 5y ago
The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%? What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality. There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters. Compare with: "Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?" No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...
- mr_mitm 5y ago
  The fixation on the 0.04% is particularly confusing, as the other 99.96% of the atmosphere is mostly completely transparent to the relevant frequencies. Going by volume or ppm is wrong when all we care about is the absorption factor. Greenhouse gases don't absorb less infrared radiation by adding transparent nitrogen, even though it would reduce the greenhouse gas concentration.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions? This is a loaded question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ), since it implies that this question-asking is honest and straightforward. On the contrary, it seems like OP is "jaqing off" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions ); unless, of course, they can absolutely prove 100% that they're acting in good faith.
- useragent86 5y ago
  Can you absolutely prove 100% that you're acting in good faith?
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    Nope, but that's no matter, since whether or not I am acting in good faith is logically independent of whether OP is jaqing off (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque ). In contrast, OP's hunch about the climate emergency either not existing because the concentration of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is "small" (according to some unspecified criteria), and/or fixing itself due to plant growth, run counter to the consensus position of the world scientific community, and hence the burden of proof is on OP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) It was their choice to raise that burden to the unachievable height of '100% absolute proof' :)

ysavir 5y ago

Doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, it's good practice to validate the conclusions--and to continue doing so regularly. Please don't discourage people from asking for the data and the facts, no matter what your perspective is.

ForHackernews 5y ago
Just curious, could somebody explain to me quickly here how computers work, starting from transistors? It seems implausible to me that tiny electrical circuits could be used to produce logical operations. I'm really just asking an honest question, and it's always healthy to revisit the evidence especially when you're making a big claim like "sand does maths".
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  https://www.tindie.com/products/codecorrect/basic-logic-gates-using-transistors-learning-kit/ https://www.tindie.com/products/codecorrect/basic-logic-gate... And then https://www.nand2tetris.org/ https://www.nand2tetris.org/