3 ms·

Here's where all the right-wing programmers on HN, with no relevant training or expertise in climate science, geology, physics, etc., all chime in with their ow

Here's where all the right-wing programmers on HN, with no relevant training or expertise in climate science, geology, physics, etc., all chime in with their own right-wing consensus view that, "Thems evil liberal hippie scientists have an agenda to raise our taxes and fund their labs! I say it's just mystic mumbo jumbo and bah humbug!" Meanwhile, serious mature accomplished people with relevant expertise and years of experience in the field, who study real data, and done lots of model tuning & analysis, and overall have a much deeper knowledge of the physical and biological systems involved are worried, very worried, and calling for action, and their numbers are growing. Given that humans can mistakes. And given that it's hard to know for sure who exactly is right. And given the magnitude of the stakes involved, the magnitude of the downside risk in the "bad" scenario variants, which kind of people do you think it would be wiser to believe and follow their advice? On climate, I'm going to bet on the climate scientists, and I hope enough of the rest of you join me, for all our sakes.

Devilboy 14y ago
OK so here's a question: Let's assume for the moment that this paper is 100% accurate in its assessment of the future of our climate, and let's further assume that the general public will continue to be apathetic for the time being. What's going to happen? Are we doomed because we won't be able to act on a large enough scale in time? Or will things change (quickly enough) once the average Joe starts 'feeling the heat'?
InclinedPlane 14y ago
The scientific method is not "right wing". You can pretend that politically motivated pseudoscience is science, it does not make it so, and at the end of the day it hurts the cause of science. We live in a world (world, not just country) where strong support for science and reason is very much in the minority. We are so very close to the tipping point of falling into a new dark age of superstition. And by far the easiest way to end up in that state is to pervert and twist the scientific establishment into supporting a specific set of ideals a priori, independent of evidence and reason, and destroying the credibility of the scientific establishment and indeed in the very concept of science in the process. If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics. Not with vitriol. Not with hatred. You make an ad hominem attack with your first sentence. Then you make good use of the fallacy of the excluded middle, the straw man argument, argument from authority, and then an appeal to popularity. You can do better. And when it comes to topics such as scientific integrity and ethics as well as the future of human civilization we must do better.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  > The scientific method is not "right wing". I did not say that. Quote me where I said that. > You can pretend that politically motivated pseudoscience is science, it does not make it so (...) Indeed. And calling something pseudoscience does NOT MAKE it pseudoscience. And if you are not a scientist, especially not one in the relevant field, then my position is that your opinion and conclusions on the matter are of much lower weight than of those who are and who do have these qualities. > If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics. Not with vitriol. Indeed. Let's let the folks with relevant experience, training and credentials work on this issue, and let them make their recommendations to their fellow citizens who are laymen. And then let's follow their advice on these matters. I see way too much politics and game-playing on the part of the anti-climate-change folks, so a large percentage of that community is at best, noise, and at worst, suspect, in my judgement. You are good at coming up with terms for patterns in debate. That does not make your position on the climate change issue correct. Nor does it make my position wrong. Nor does it make the judgments of climate scientists wrong. In fact, it's irrelevant. What does matter is whether we listen to people with the relevant expertise or not.

Devilboy 14y ago

OK so here's a question: Let's assume for the moment that this paper is 100% accurate in its assessment of the future of our climate, and let's further assume that the general public will continue to be apathetic for the time being. What's going to happen? Are we doomed because we won't be able to act on a large enough scale in time? Or will things change (quickly enough) once the average Joe starts 'feeling the heat'?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

The scientific method is not "right wing". You can pretend that politically motivated pseudoscience is science, it does not make it so, and at the end of the day it hurts the cause of science. We live in a world (world, not just country) where strong support for science and reason is very much in the minority. We are so very close to the tipping point of falling into a new dark age of superstition. And by far the easiest way to end up in that state is to pervert and twist the scientific establishment into supporting a specific set of ideals a priori, independent of evidence and reason, and destroying the credibility of the scientific establishment and indeed in the very concept of science in the process. If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics. Not with vitriol. Not with hatred. You make an ad hominem attack with your first sentence. Then you make good use of the fallacy of the excluded middle, the straw man argument, argument from authority, and then an appeal to popularity. You can do better. And when it comes to topics such as scientific integrity and ethics as well as the future of human civilization we must do better.

mkramlich 14y ago
> The scientific method is not "right wing". I did not say that. Quote me where I said that. > You can pretend that politically motivated pseudoscience is science, it does not make it so (...) Indeed. And calling something pseudoscience does NOT MAKE it pseudoscience. And if you are not a scientist, especially not one in the relevant field, then my position is that your opinion and conclusions on the matter are of much lower weight than of those who are and who do have these qualities. > If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics. Not with vitriol. Indeed. Let's let the folks with relevant experience, training and credentials work on this issue, and let them make their recommendations to their fellow citizens who are laymen. And then let's follow their advice on these matters. I see way too much politics and game-playing on the part of the anti-climate-change folks, so a large percentage of that community is at best, noise, and at worst, suspect, in my judgement. You are good at coming up with terms for patterns in debate. That does not make your position on the climate change issue correct. Nor does it make my position wrong. Nor does it make the judgments of climate scientists wrong. In fact, it's irrelevant. What does matter is whether we listen to people with the relevant expertise or not.