3 ms·

The reason I linked the NCA above is to clarify that we have data on the severity of this problem. Everything you said above about Science versus Policy is tru

The reason I linked the NCA above is to clarify that we have data on the severity of this problem. Everything you said above about Science versus Policy is true, as a generic matter. Problem is (as you can see in the GP comment that sparked my own comment) that a lot of HN commenters seem to view the Science piece fundamentally un-settled. And another problem with your statements above is, as I was gently pointing out, that very well-informed and deliberative scientists -- I'm talking about people who have done geophysics their whole life, and are not temperamentally given to alarm -- have become very alarmed indeed about the our lack of responsive Policy around this. So generic comments like yours (that could apply to any interface of Science and Policy, including cigarette smoking or leaded gasoline) that don't address the specifics of this particular problem come off as, well, pretty low-information. And this is not "rational skepticism", just a boring kind of generic contrarian stubbornness.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> So generic comments like yours (that could apply to any interface of Science and Policy, including cigarette smoking or leaded gasoline) that don't address the specifics of this particular problem come off as, well, pretty low-information. It seems like you misread the main point of making that comment. I wasn't trying to refute the entirety of climate change in that post. The point was to try and provide one personal opinion on why climate change feels like a religion using a fairly clear understanding of the difference between the scientific method and what is not science. If climate change is too loaded of a topic for you, think in terms of Covid and what we've dealt with the past 2 years. There are smart rational people who are shouted out down for "not trusting the science" when they merely disagree with imposing a particular risk-management decision on young healthy people who face almost zero risk from Covid. Science doesn't tell anybody to take any particular medication: science merely gives us the tool to understand the possible risks and benefits to human actions. If that's a boring, low-information, generic comment, well ok then.
- mturmon 4y ago
  I’m afraid it is such a comment. HN is over-provisioned with “just asking questions” climate skeptics who use these points. Your objections and hypotheticals are generic and do not reckon with what we do know about the specific problem of climate change. And note, despite saying you aren’t trying to question the science, the last paragraphs in your original do just that (“the financial survival instinct for them exists”).
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    What is it to you if somebody questions the natural world? That's the key step of scientific inquiry. I don't think we have much else to talk about here as you're trying to focus on the specifics of climate change and I've told you that my comment was for a different purpose: backing up the other person's comment that a lot of appeals to science felt like a religious belief. But for what it's worth, your objections to my comments have only reinforced my opinion because your objection seems to take the form of religious offense, even taking offense at somebody daring to ask questions that express the littlest doubt or questioning the moral purity of your sect's leaders.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> So generic comments like yours (that could apply to any interface of Science and Policy, including cigarette smoking or leaded gasoline) that don't address the specifics of this particular problem come off as, well, pretty low-information. It seems like you misread the main point of making that comment. I wasn't trying to refute the entirety of climate change in that post. The point was to try and provide one personal opinion on why climate change feels like a religion using a fairly clear understanding of the difference between the scientific method and what is not science. If climate change is too loaded of a topic for you, think in terms of Covid and what we've dealt with the past 2 years. There are smart rational people who are shouted out down for "not trusting the science" when they merely disagree with imposing a particular risk-management decision on young healthy people who face almost zero risk from Covid. Science doesn't tell anybody to take any particular medication: science merely gives us the tool to understand the possible risks and benefits to human actions. If that's a boring, low-information, generic comment, well ok then.

mturmon 4y ago
I’m afraid it is such a comment. HN is over-provisioned with “just asking questions” climate skeptics who use these points. Your objections and hypotheticals are generic and do not reckon with what we do know about the specific problem of climate change. And note, despite saying you aren’t trying to question the science, the last paragraphs in your original do just that (“the financial survival instinct for them exists”).
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  What is it to you if somebody questions the natural world? That's the key step of scientific inquiry. I don't think we have much else to talk about here as you're trying to focus on the specifics of climate change and I've told you that my comment was for a different purpose: backing up the other person's comment that a lot of appeals to science felt like a religious belief. But for what it's worth, your objections to my comments have only reinforced my opinion because your objection seems to take the form of religious offense, even taking offense at somebody daring to ask questions that express the littlest doubt or questioning the moral purity of your sect's leaders.