4 ms·

Seems this was immediately heavily downvoted (I'm not OP). Curious to see what arguments against this stance are.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kristopolous 3y ago
Citing large technical volumes and claiming they say something counter to a consensus, such as https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ is a classic bluff. For example, it's one of Alex Jones's favorite tactics. I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. The bluffer in this classic game, however, has already moved on to misappropriating their next large volume. It's easy to toss smoke bombs.
- dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
  This isn't really a counter argument. It's more of a form of rhetoric argument, which is also what you're accusing GP of.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    I don't think you get it. Let's say you don't speak, say, Chinese. I make a claim that's in stark disagreement to the general consensus, such as "The Chinese claim their country is an island in the Caribbean north of Jamaica" and then I find a large academic text, in Chinese, and claim that I translated a section of it that supports my argument. What are you going to do? Learn Chinese, read the text, then come back in 4 years and tell me I'm wrong? That's what this game is. You can go and find the quote the OP is using, read the context, and, if you take the time, see it doesn't mean what they claim. It's asymmetrical and either not done in good faith or not worth engaging in.
    - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
      Yes, but you haven't proven this is what GP is doing. You have just asserted it is, without providing further evidence beyond > I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. which is not very convincing. You might very well be right but it doesn't seem logically consistent to dismiss arguments in this way. We have time to debate anyway.
      - kristopolous 3y ago
        Go check the OP replies. I'm under no obligation to further convince you of that which is obvious. Thanks for your time. Have a good afternoon
        dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
        Of course, it's an online forum, no need to engage further if you do not wish to. Have a good day.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic that superficially resembles argumentation but is really just a time-waster. One could simply refuse to engage, but that cedes the field to the people using in the easiest talking points. That "field" consists of people whose opinions matter, because they vote, but continue to consider the situation "unproven" despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly on one side. It becomes entirely a matter of persuasion, almost completely divorced from the actual data, since anybody capable of being persuaded by the data already has been.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      It's not that they don't find the empirical evidence persuasive but they can't resolve it with their personal emotional and political alignments. Until you can repackage climate change as some slaphappy singsongy jesus thing or some hayekian libertarian delusion, a large percentage of the population will never get on board. That's because the evidence they're looking for is biblical verses or rational choice theory argument - there's nothing materialist about their epistemology which is why that approach simply does not work.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Claiming a consensus when there isn't one is a classic bluff.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    The satellite measurements of Antarctic sea ice are not in dispute. Nobody is putting forth a device with a different measurement. The submarine surveys agree with the Buoy measurements agree with the satellite measurements which agree with the microwave remote sensing measurements. There was 1 (one) (singular) study from 8 years ago that had a different interpretation of the numbers by Jay Zwally. People who don't understand science love attaching themselves to it like pulling out Andrew Wakefield's vaccine autism paper. They are quick to discredit 99.99% of the science and then parade around with the 0.01% cause celebre calling it irrefutable evidence. Here's the 157 citations to that paper, as you can see, it doesn't look like any of them support the findings https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945271910746936446 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945... For instance: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y or https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082182 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... But some people will cling on to these tiny crumbs like a toddler with a comfort blanket. I get it.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying to claim there's a dispute over satellite measurement accuracy (there isn't). As for your claims of consensus, please just stop. Almost nothing about the climate has a consensus outside of the physical absorption bands of various gases. Constantly claiming you don't need to respond to people's points because there's a "consensus" when there obviously isn't is an illegitimate tactic. Engage with the point or don't, but don't try and pretend you're in the right to ignore it.
      - kristopolous 3y ago
        That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.
csnover 3y ago
Edit: I moved this comment to reply directly to the OP at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37251831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37251831 since that seems like a better place for it.
- dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
  This actually seems like a good counter argument.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Citing large technical volumes and claiming they say something counter to a consensus, such as https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ is a classic bluff. For example, it's one of Alex Jones's favorite tactics. I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. The bluffer in this classic game, however, has already moved on to misappropriating their next large volume. It's easy to toss smoke bombs.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
This isn't really a counter argument. It's more of a form of rhetoric argument, which is also what you're accusing GP of.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  I don't think you get it. Let's say you don't speak, say, Chinese. I make a claim that's in stark disagreement to the general consensus, such as "The Chinese claim their country is an island in the Caribbean north of Jamaica" and then I find a large academic text, in Chinese, and claim that I translated a section of it that supports my argument. What are you going to do? Learn Chinese, read the text, then come back in 4 years and tell me I'm wrong? That's what this game is. You can go and find the quote the OP is using, read the context, and, if you take the time, see it doesn't mean what they claim. It's asymmetrical and either not done in good faith or not worth engaging in.
  - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
    Yes, but you haven't proven this is what GP is doing. You have just asserted it is, without providing further evidence beyond > I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. which is not very convincing. You might very well be right but it doesn't seem logically consistent to dismiss arguments in this way. We have time to debate anyway.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      Go check the OP replies. I'm under no obligation to further convince you of that which is obvious. Thanks for your time. Have a good afternoon
      - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
        Of course, it's an online forum, no need to engage further if you do not wish to. Have a good day.
- jfengel 3y ago
  We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic that superficially resembles argumentation but is really just a time-waster. One could simply refuse to engage, but that cedes the field to the people using in the easiest talking points. That "field" consists of people whose opinions matter, because they vote, but continue to consider the situation "unproven" despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly on one side. It becomes entirely a matter of persuasion, almost completely divorced from the actual data, since anybody capable of being persuaded by the data already has been.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    It's not that they don't find the empirical evidence persuasive but they can't resolve it with their personal emotional and political alignments. Until you can repackage climate change as some slaphappy singsongy jesus thing or some hayekian libertarian delusion, a large percentage of the population will never get on board. That's because the evidence they're looking for is biblical verses or rational choice theory argument - there's nothing materialist about their epistemology which is why that approach simply does not work.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Claiming a consensus when there isn't one is a classic bluff.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  The satellite measurements of Antarctic sea ice are not in dispute. Nobody is putting forth a device with a different measurement. The submarine surveys agree with the Buoy measurements agree with the satellite measurements which agree with the microwave remote sensing measurements. There was 1 (one) (singular) study from 8 years ago that had a different interpretation of the numbers by Jay Zwally. People who don't understand science love attaching themselves to it like pulling out Andrew Wakefield's vaccine autism paper. They are quick to discredit 99.99% of the science and then parade around with the 0.01% cause celebre calling it irrefutable evidence. Here's the 157 citations to that paper, as you can see, it doesn't look like any of them support the findings https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945271910746936446 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945... For instance: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y or https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082182 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... But some people will cling on to these tiny crumbs like a toddler with a comfort blanket. I get it.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying to claim there's a dispute over satellite measurement accuracy (there isn't). As for your claims of consensus, please just stop. Almost nothing about the climate has a consensus outside of the physical absorption bands of various gases. Constantly claiming you don't need to respond to people's points because there's a "consensus" when there obviously isn't is an illegitimate tactic. Engage with the point or don't, but don't try and pretend you're in the right to ignore it.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.

csnover 3y ago

Edit: I moved this comment to reply directly to the OP at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37251831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37251831 since that seems like a better place for it.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
This actually seems like a good counter argument.