4 ms·

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.

by gspr 2y ago

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.
      - a-french-anon 2y ago
        You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". The crux of the problem in your post is the use of the words "consensus" and "established" when these can easily be manufactured (and the infamous climategate shows such social engineering, even without debating the scientific truth or untruth of the matter). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_... is a very good illustration of the problem at hand (ignore the possibly loaded title, it's not what you may think)
        gspr 2y ago
        > You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. No. I'm implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt massive amounts of data that has been, and is being, actively studied by thousands upon thousands of experts for decades, is contradicting data. Perhaps more importantly, I'm implying that armchairing an opinion on the matter carries zero weight. > Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Science's very imperfect funding structures do indeed cause worthwhile endeavours to go unexplored. That's sad. But irrelevant here, as it does not invalidate the conclusions from endeavours that are funded. > Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". Absolutely! For example when evidence is scant and a problem is under-studied. My problem is that you and OP seem to leap from that fact to that always being true. Climate change is not such a case, and unless you have large amounts of contradictive data, you're an idiot for saying "I don't know". And if you did have vast amounts of contradicting data, you'd bring it! > a-french-anon 24 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Is Europe headed towards a new Ice Age as ocean cu... You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". > The crux of the problem in your post is the use of the words "consensus" and "established" when these can easily be manufactured No. You clearly have zero clue how science works. > (and the infamous climategate shows such social engineering, even without debating the scientific truth or untruth of the matter). ?!

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.

by 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.
    - a-french-anon 2y ago
      You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". The crux of the problem in your post is the use of the words "consensus" and "established" when these can easily be manufactured (and the infamous climategate shows such social engineering, even without debating the scientific truth or untruth of the matter). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_... is a very good illustration of the problem at hand (ignore the possibly loaded title, it's not what you may think)
      - gspr 2y ago
        > You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. No. I'm implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt massive amounts of data that has been, and is being, actively studied by thousands upon thousands of experts for decades, is contradicting data. Perhaps more importantly, I'm implying that armchairing an opinion on the matter carries zero weight. > Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Science's very imperfect funding structures do indeed cause worthwhile endeavours to go unexplored. That's sad. But irrelevant here, as it does not invalidate the conclusions from endeavours that are funded. > Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". Absolutely! For example when evidence is scant and a problem is under-studied. My problem is that you and OP seem to leap from that fact to that always being true. Climate change is not such a case, and unless you have large amounts of contradictive data, you're an idiot for saying "I don't know". And if you did have vast amounts of contradicting data, you'd bring it! > a-french-anon 24 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Is Europe headed towards a new Ice Age as ocean cu... You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". > The crux of the problem in your post is the use of the words "consensus" and "established" when these can easily be manufactured No. You clearly have zero clue how science works. > (and the infamous climategate shows such social engineering, even without debating the scientific truth or untruth of the matter). ?!