5 ms·

> No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineer

by Eduard 3y ago

> No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 This HN user categorically and obsessively has their own opinion on climate change, and how it is influenced by humans. Their "evidence research" is taking the first Google search result that they believe to support their position in the discussion at hand - even if it doesn't make sense (hurricanes in North America versus Mediterranean). If they don't invest in such sloppy research, their arguments hit rock-bottom Tiktok factoid niveau. one can better just assume nonsense/randomizing/lying and ignore this user for anything climate-related.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Do you understand how creepy it is of you to go digging into other users comment history and posting about it when there's a disagreement on a topic? Maybe let the arguments speak for themselves? We're not supposed to be some kind of commissars looking for dissidents or witch hunters looking for heretics.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? That seems to be ... integral to the function of the site itself: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22you%27ve%20been%22&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> Reputation and patterns of behavior matter.
  - swader999 3y ago
    Well I guess I'm guilty of posting my own opinion on various aspects of climate change along with links from time to time. Is that evil in your books, should I be banned? I think you can go back to every post I've ever made and not find any cases of ad hominem attacks. I'm satisfied with that. Edit, yup, it was poor maintenance on the dam as indicated in 2021: https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137 https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/your-right-opinion-does-not-make-your-opinion-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/y...>
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. Whatever one of us writes in a comment, somebody else could as easily have written, that's why only the argument itself is interesting. It is misguided effort to care about any "reputation" of an anonymous user on an anonymous discussion platform, unless you're moderating said platform. Apologies for the meta-discussion.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. I reject both of those assertions. Authorship matters. Comments are not anonymous, but optionally pseudonymous, where reputation (karma) is explicitly tracked. The significant point of karma tracking isn't the accuracy of that karma, but the tracking of it. Other measures, such as flags and moderator admonishments, are also presumably tracked, at least by mods. All imply that reputation is an integral element of Hacker News participation.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        The very concept of science is a revolution against the idea that author matters more than content. What you propose is how the world used to work, and still does in many aspects and places, ie that something is to be judged not by what is said, but by who said it. If a nobody or disreputable person says something it is to be considered false, and if a reputable and honored person says something it is to be considered true. But that's backwards and hurts both science and justice. Instead we must dare to take arguments at face value in order to move forward. Studying court cases, I've seen too many instances of people who initially weren't believed or just dismissed, because they weren't considered the right "who", but in the end were proven to be completely right. Studying the history of science, there are many such famous cases. As for the science of meteorology, it shouldn't be treated as an ideological war, where people go after each other's characters – even pseudonymously. It's the study of elements that don't care what humans think of them. Apart fromt this, you seem to confuse moderating with discussing. Wether somebody or somebody's comments are subject to moderator actions have nothing to do with the truthfulness of what they wrote.
swader999 3y ago
Well forget studies then, look at the data: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&... Use the drop down and look at accumulated cyclone energy. There's no trend in 42 years and last year was the third lowest total tropical cyclone energy for earth in the last 42 years. This year seems on track to be very low for cyclone energy too. Costs in terms of percent of GDP are falling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343?journalCode=tenh20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.15... And most importantly, death rates for weather are drastically reduced over the last hundred years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=earliest..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...
- swader999 3y ago
  Edit, crickets? C'mon parent, what do you say to this data?

by Eduard 3y ago

carlosjobim 3y ago

Do you understand how creepy it is of you to go digging into other users comment history and posting about it when there's a disagreement on a topic? Maybe let the arguments speak for themselves? We're not supposed to be some kind of commissars looking for dissidents or witch hunters looking for heretics.

dredmorbius 3y ago
And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? That seems to be ... integral to the function of the site itself: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22you%27ve%20been%22&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> Reputation and patterns of behavior matter.
- swader999 3y ago
  Well I guess I'm guilty of posting my own opinion on various aspects of climate change along with links from time to time. Is that evil in your books, should I be banned? I think you can go back to every post I've ever made and not find any cases of ad hominem attacks. I'm satisfied with that. Edit, yup, it was poor maintenance on the dam as indicated in 2021: https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137 https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/your-right-opinion-does-not-make-your-opinion-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/y...>
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. Whatever one of us writes in a comment, somebody else could as easily have written, that's why only the argument itself is interesting. It is misguided effort to care about any "reputation" of an anonymous user on an anonymous discussion platform, unless you're moderating said platform. Apologies for the meta-discussion.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. I reject both of those assertions. Authorship matters. Comments are not anonymous, but optionally pseudonymous, where reputation (karma) is explicitly tracked. The significant point of karma tracking isn't the accuracy of that karma, but the tracking of it. Other measures, such as flags and moderator admonishments, are also presumably tracked, at least by mods. All imply that reputation is an integral element of Hacker News participation.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      The very concept of science is a revolution against the idea that author matters more than content. What you propose is how the world used to work, and still does in many aspects and places, ie that something is to be judged not by what is said, but by who said it. If a nobody or disreputable person says something it is to be considered false, and if a reputable and honored person says something it is to be considered true. But that's backwards and hurts both science and justice. Instead we must dare to take arguments at face value in order to move forward. Studying court cases, I've seen too many instances of people who initially weren't believed or just dismissed, because they weren't considered the right "who", but in the end were proven to be completely right. Studying the history of science, there are many such famous cases. As for the science of meteorology, it shouldn't be treated as an ideological war, where people go after each other's characters – even pseudonymously. It's the study of elements that don't care what humans think of them. Apart fromt this, you seem to confuse moderating with discussing. Wether somebody or somebody's comments are subject to moderator actions have nothing to do with the truthfulness of what they wrote.

swader999 3y ago

Well forget studies then, look at the data: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&... Use the drop down and look at accumulated cyclone energy. There's no trend in 42 years and last year was the third lowest total tropical cyclone energy for earth in the last 42 years. This year seems on track to be very low for cyclone energy too. Costs in terms of percent of GDP are falling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343?journalCode=tenh20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.15... And most importantly, death rates for weather are drastically reduced over the last hundred years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=earliest..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...

swader999 3y ago
Edit, crickets? C'mon parent, what do you say to this data?