3 ms·

I'll bite. Not because I think I can change your behavior, but just so that others passing by don't end up taking your comment as having value. > First it's gl

by gspr 2y ago

I'll bite. Not because I think I can change your behavior, but just so that others passing by don't end up taking your comment as having value. > First it's global warming, then ice age, then again global warming... Imagine a car that's lost a wheel and is careening down the highway out of control. The passenger screams "the truck behind us is gonna ram us!". Then: "we're going to faaaast, slow down!" Then it's "watch the barrier on the left, go right go right!", and then finally "watch the lightpole on the right!" I assume you ridicule this passenger saying he doesn't even seem to know what the problem is? > Then when they realize we have realized that they don't know what they are talking about they use vague terms as "climate change" to gaslight us into thinking they know what they are talking about. It's impressive, really. Thousands and thousands of scientists spend their entire careers studying the physics of the atmosphere. From this they conclude, through painstaking work, backed up by data, that the atmosphere is becoming warmer – i.e. more energetic – due to human activity. The effects of this is aggrevated extremes. Hotter heatwaves. Colder cold snaps. Drier droughts. Wetter floods. And potentially (and now we're not in established science, but rather informed speculation) collapsing ocean currents that can lead to much colder temperatures in some places. Yet you, brilliant NotGMan, you throw out all of that. You lean back, hammer your keyboard, and declare that these brilliant people "don't know what they are talking about". Unlike you, oh brilliant NotGMan, of course! _You_ know! Right? Come on. Spare us.

a-french-anon 2y ago
> It's impressive, really. Thousands and thousands of scientists spend their entire careers studying the physics of the atmosphere. From this they conclude, through painstaking work, backed up by data, that the atmosphere is becoming warmer – i.e. more energetic – due to human activity. All good until you understand that unless you are part of those experts (true experts, the one who never parrot anything and won't fall to ego self-tricks), you need to prefix your paragraph with "the scientific consensus brought to me by mass medias is:". Fact is you seem very vulnerable to Gell-Mann amnesia compounded by Wikipedia "reliable sources" bias, from the way you write.
- gspr 2y ago
  Feel free to correct me. There's of course limited actual scientific substance that fits into a dozens-of-words HN comment, but any improvement is welcome.
  - a-french-anon 2y ago
    I read the climategate emails myself - instead of reading Snopes and co. "factchecking" - and you can too. There is no proof of a "big lie" in it, but plenty of malpractice and lack of scientific integrity.
    - gspr 2y ago
      I'm terribly confused. I don't see any corrections in what you wrote.
      - a-french-anon 2y ago
        The "correction" (more like a warning) is in the trust one should have in those institutions and the data they produce. Thus, treating anyone skeptical of the complete theory of human-induced global warming (which is different from not wanting to reduce pollution, mind you) as a troglodyte who "goes against the SCIENCE^tm" isn't wise at all.
        gspr 2y ago
        > Thus, treating anyone skeptical of the complete theory of human-induced global warming (which is different from not wanting to reduce pollution, mind you) as a troglodyte who "goes against the SCIENCE^tm" isn't wise at all. I assume you by this mean that it's not wise to treat everyone who goes against the consensus as a troglodyte. Not that everyone who does so should be exempt from being treated as a troglodyte. The latter would be pretty silly. I'm not doing that. I'm simply pointing out that if someone goes against said consensus, they damn well be prepared to provide the evidence of why they're right. That burden does not fall on those who assume that the vast body of established science is, in fact, correct. Someone thinking that they can just armchair their way out of scientific consensus is, indeed, a troglodyte.

by gspr 2y ago

a-french-anon 2y ago

> It's impressive, really. Thousands and thousands of scientists spend their entire careers studying the physics of the atmosphere. From this they conclude, through painstaking work, backed up by data, that the atmosphere is becoming warmer – i.e. more energetic – due to human activity. All good until you understand that unless you are part of those experts (true experts, the one who never parrot anything and won't fall to ego self-tricks), you need to prefix your paragraph with "the scientific consensus brought to me by mass medias is:". Fact is you seem very vulnerable to Gell-Mann amnesia compounded by Wikipedia "reliable sources" bias, from the way you write.

gspr 2y ago
Feel free to correct me. There's of course limited actual scientific substance that fits into a dozens-of-words HN comment, but any improvement is welcome.
- a-french-anon 2y ago
  I read the climategate emails myself - instead of reading Snopes and co. "factchecking" - and you can too. There is no proof of a "big lie" in it, but plenty of malpractice and lack of scientific integrity.
  - gspr 2y ago
    I'm terribly confused. I don't see any corrections in what you wrote.
    - a-french-anon 2y ago
      The "correction" (more like a warning) is in the trust one should have in those institutions and the data they produce. Thus, treating anyone skeptical of the complete theory of human-induced global warming (which is different from not wanting to reduce pollution, mind you) as a troglodyte who "goes against the SCIENCE^tm" isn't wise at all.
      - gspr 2y ago
        > Thus, treating anyone skeptical of the complete theory of human-induced global warming (which is different from not wanting to reduce pollution, mind you) as a troglodyte who "goes against the SCIENCE^tm" isn't wise at all. I assume you by this mean that it's not wise to treat everyone who goes against the consensus as a troglodyte. Not that everyone who does so should be exempt from being treated as a troglodyte. The latter would be pretty silly. I'm not doing that. I'm simply pointing out that if someone goes against said consensus, they damn well be prepared to provide the evidence of why they're right. That burden does not fall on those who assume that the vast body of established science is, in fact, correct. Someone thinking that they can just armchair their way out of scientific consensus is, indeed, a troglodyte.