6 ms·

Somehow the temperature of the earth is now a political football so any actual facts are hijacked by people with an agenda. Intellectually, I'm scared to touch

Somehow the temperature of the earth is now a political football so any actual facts are hijacked by people with an agenda. Intellectually, I'm scared to touch this subject because it's such a hot potato. (no pun intended)

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
That's why we need more raw data. Even if people argue, if it's this or that to blame, raw data is always a good thing. Adding the "good" to turn it into "good raw data" is even better. Considering the last few years of manipulations with the data about "the plague", sure, there will be arguing, but again, more data is a good thing.
- JamisonM 3y ago
  What more raw data would you like?
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    Like the article from here.. that the Antarctica gain 600Gt of ice. Some will say that global warming is a scam because of that, some may say it's just a random increase with a long-term trend of decrease due to global warming... and I just like having the data.
    - jfengel 3y ago
      This isn't raw data. The raw data is a gigantic pile of satellite measurements. This is all of that data collapsed down into a single figure via a model (itself derived from yet more data), and the scope of that figure isn't as easy to characterize as "Antarctica did X". So I'd cautioned you against the belief that you really have any data here. You have a single number, flagged for your attention by somebody who (presumably) believes that they can influence your conclusion in a particular direction. You can't really draw conclusions from data without gathering as much data as possible, and this single number is nowhere near complete. If this data strengthens your confidence that you understand the whole situation, then it is worse than having no data at all.
      - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        So what... give us raw measurements too, still better than someone trying to influence us without data.
res0nat0r 3y ago
It's frankly just embarrassing too, since the data is obvious, the majority of (actual qualified scientists) who understand the subject agree that global warming is in fact happening, but a small minority of loud voices backed by big corporations make it appear that this is in fact a debatable issue.
- getwiththeprog 3y ago
  Yes this kind of link seems to be very misleading. It is amazing that just because an idea is presented, that it will have so many people believing it. This is a classic example of disinformation seeding. In reality, a casual pub chat like this is not science, not evidence not anything other than the blind leading the blind. A really great HN article would present multiple papers and deal with technology and science, as well at ethics. This discussion does not do that.
monero-xmr 3y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 3y ago
  > Even publishing data that can go against the doomer majority is career suicide. Can you provide the best example of this that you know of? Well gathered and published raw instrumentation data that resulted in career degradation.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  It’s because you only get published and therefore funded if you can make a claim that generates power. Money and influence will and does flow to things that will require change. The more dramatic the better. No one is going to fund research that concludes things will be ok. That’s a snooze fest. Only things that suggest we “DO SOMETHING”, which means justify power, get the attention from the people that want to continue justifying power. It’s why everything is a “crisis” today. There’s limited funding and finite seats at the table and you better believe the ideas that are “urgent” are the ones that will get funded. It’s not a coincidence these ideas also generate power.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Large scale well curated Ocean tempreture datasets originated from the Cold War days from a desire to be able to pinpoint submarine movements heard via sound travelling along thermoclines. Atmospheric gas libraries originated from the same era in order to track the changes resulting from atmospheric nuclear tests ( ~800+ IIRC ). Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. although they did hide under the cover of ocean research | environmental research. Other datasets come from global mineral and energy exploration geophysics, again these have goals far removed from climate change - you're correct that they are motivated by the desire for 'power' via mapping resources and extracting them.
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. Catastrophic climate doomers will get more clicks/citations/panels than moderates than skeptics. “The world is ending we must act now” is a whole lot more attractive than “there are concerns but they are manageable” which is more attractive than “climatology isn’t actually science because it isn’t falsifiable and there’s a lot of contradicting models built by equally qualified people and we should avoid only listening to the most dramatic ones and try and do actual science when possible and be wary of dogma.” No one’s funding that for more research!

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

That's why we need more raw data. Even if people argue, if it's this or that to blame, raw data is always a good thing. Adding the "good" to turn it into "good raw data" is even better. Considering the last few years of manipulations with the data about "the plague", sure, there will be arguing, but again, more data is a good thing.

JamisonM 3y ago
What more raw data would you like?
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  Like the article from here.. that the Antarctica gain 600Gt of ice. Some will say that global warming is a scam because of that, some may say it's just a random increase with a long-term trend of decrease due to global warming... and I just like having the data.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    This isn't raw data. The raw data is a gigantic pile of satellite measurements. This is all of that data collapsed down into a single figure via a model (itself derived from yet more data), and the scope of that figure isn't as easy to characterize as "Antarctica did X". So I'd cautioned you against the belief that you really have any data here. You have a single number, flagged for your attention by somebody who (presumably) believes that they can influence your conclusion in a particular direction. You can't really draw conclusions from data without gathering as much data as possible, and this single number is nowhere near complete. If this data strengthens your confidence that you understand the whole situation, then it is worse than having no data at all.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      So what... give us raw measurements too, still better than someone trying to influence us without data.

res0nat0r 3y ago

It's frankly just embarrassing too, since the data is obvious, the majority of (actual qualified scientists) who understand the subject agree that global warming is in fact happening, but a small minority of loud voices backed by big corporations make it appear that this is in fact a debatable issue.

getwiththeprog 3y ago
Yes this kind of link seems to be very misleading. It is amazing that just because an idea is presented, that it will have so many people believing it. This is a classic example of disinformation seeding. In reality, a casual pub chat like this is not science, not evidence not anything other than the blind leading the blind. A really great HN article would present multiple papers and deal with technology and science, as well at ethics. This discussion does not do that.

monero-xmr 3y ago

[flagged]

defrost 3y ago
> Even publishing data that can go against the doomer majority is career suicide. Can you provide the best example of this that you know of? Well gathered and published raw instrumentation data that resulted in career degradation.
nemo44x 3y ago
It’s because you only get published and therefore funded if you can make a claim that generates power. Money and influence will and does flow to things that will require change. The more dramatic the better. No one is going to fund research that concludes things will be ok. That’s a snooze fest. Only things that suggest we “DO SOMETHING”, which means justify power, get the attention from the people that want to continue justifying power. It’s why everything is a “crisis” today. There’s limited funding and finite seats at the table and you better believe the ideas that are “urgent” are the ones that will get funded. It’s not a coincidence these ideas also generate power.
- defrost 3y ago
  Large scale well curated Ocean tempreture datasets originated from the Cold War days from a desire to be able to pinpoint submarine movements heard via sound travelling along thermoclines. Atmospheric gas libraries originated from the same era in order to track the changes resulting from atmospheric nuclear tests ( ~800+ IIRC ). Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. although they did hide under the cover of ocean research | environmental research. Other datasets come from global mineral and energy exploration geophysics, again these have goals far removed from climate change - you're correct that they are motivated by the desire for 'power' via mapping resources and extracting them.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. Catastrophic climate doomers will get more clicks/citations/panels than moderates than skeptics. “The world is ending we must act now” is a whole lot more attractive than “there are concerns but they are manageable” which is more attractive than “climatology isn’t actually science because it isn’t falsifiable and there’s a lot of contradicting models built by equally qualified people and we should avoid only listening to the most dramatic ones and try and do actual science when possible and be wary of dogma.” No one’s funding that for more research!