3 ms·

A wonderfully trite platitude that can be selectively applied to any pet issue. Let me guess; you're a climate change skeptic. edit: I'm not implying that it i

A wonderfully trite platitude that can be selectively applied to any pet issue. Let me guess; you're a climate change skeptic. edit: I'm not implying that it is wrong to be skeptical, I'm saying that the poster's alignment is obviously that of a skeptic because it's a common tactic for this particular brand of skeptic to suggest that politics is at play in the mind of scientists. If anyone agrees that politics makes good science then that statement is not a platitude.

jpwagner 13y ago
i think many people need to be reminded that whenever we talk of "consensus" we talk of politics and not science. that's nothing to do with the specific topic at all, so no need to troll. my criticism of the OP is that this IS a political discussion not a scientific one, anyway, so his comment is moot.
- vectorpush 13y ago
  so no need to troll Identify where I was trolling please. i think many people need to be reminded that whenever we talk of "consensus" we talk of politics and not science. That's a red herring. It's a common tactic for those who disagree with a prevailing scientific idea to dismissively chide scientists as playing politics, as if the scientific consensus emerged from political donations instead of from conclusions based on data. Consensus does not imply unanimity or even that the data is correct, but it's only in climate science that we see people actively fight the broad conclusions of the scientific community as a whole.
  - jpwagner 13y ago
    Anywhere policy decisions are made, it is practical to vote on alternatives. This is where the "consensus" is justified. The rest of your conspiracy crap has no place here. You are hung-up on a subpopulation that is likely not even on HN.
    - vectorpush 13y ago
      The rest of your conspiracy crap has no place here. You are hung-up on a subpopulation that is likely not even on HN. Where in any of my responses have I said anything about a conspiracy? It seems as if you're the one who is hung up on an ideology you're trying to inject into my argument. Anywhere policy decisions are made, it is practical to vote on alternatives. This is where the "consensus" is justified. Try not to interpret this as trolling but, I don't disagree with this statement. What is your point here?
      - jpwagner 13y ago
        "Where in any of my responses have I said anything about a conspiracy?" as if the scientific consensus emerged from political donations... ...it's only in climate science that we see people actively fight the broad conclusions of the scientific community as a whole.
        vectorpush 13y ago
        Friend, you're stretching the definition of conspiracy quite a bit here. At the very least, a conspiracy theory would require some accusation of collusion between some parties. There is no secret plan, I'm just pointing out a common rhetorical tactic I disagree with.
jordan0day 13y ago
That's interesting, I got the exact opposite vibe from marknutter's comment. Considering that the link was about a particular report indicating that climate change might be "less severe" than some think, and then subsequent claims that the report was "misleading", I suppose it's not necessarily clear from context which is supposed to be the "bad science" part. I suppose there's a thin line between "trite platitude" and "observant insight". (Which one is this?)
- vectorpush 13y ago
  Where is the insight? Politics makes bad science? Find me someone who disagrees with that statement; it's an empty shell of a response that says nothing about the topic.
rsync 13y ago
No, let me guess - you believe in the scientific method and skeptical inquiry ... unless the science is "settled".
- vectorpush 13y ago
  I have no problem with skeptics, my problem is with the blanket labeling of science as politics when you disagree with the conclusions the scientists come up with.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    I think maybe I can prove that this has disintegrated into politics and that it was inevitable. Assume there is a political conspiracy to increase their power and create new taxes and that they are using global warming to get to this. If so we would see a lot of reports, worried politicians and worried scientists (which we would also see if it was real) what we wouldn't see are solutions that aren't politically feasable (say banning cars) but maybe necessary if we are to prevent the climate change and we wouldn't see solutions that don't try to clamor peoples freedom (say putting up mirrors in the ocean to send some of the suns rays back out into space) but might work (IANACS so I don't know if it works). So far what I have seen matches with what I would then expect. People often claim that the skeptics are merely stuges paid by the oil companies - but what does that make of those scientists who are paid by the government? This isn't even talked about. Basically my guess is that the movement significant amounts of money entered the scene science became impossible. Scientists won't share their data because there are grants and money and jobs at stake, they are willing to use underhand tatics to prevent dissenters from publishing (because there are jobs and grants and careers at stake).
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      I think maybe you don't understand what the word "prove" means. > and we wouldn't see solutions that don't try to clamor peoples freedom (say putting up mirrors in the ocean to send some of the suns rays back out into space) but might work (IANACS so I don't know if it works). Actually, solar mirrors or similar space structures have been proposed. The main reason they aren't part of the dominant current recommendations is that they are very high-risk, in terms of engineering, compared to the existing short- and long-term mitigation recommendations, and also that many of the existing mitigations mitigate other risks that share common causes with AGW but which solar mirrors don't.

jpwagner 13y ago

i think many people need to be reminded that whenever we talk of "consensus" we talk of politics and not science. that's nothing to do with the specific topic at all, so no need to troll. my criticism of the OP is that this IS a political discussion not a scientific one, anyway, so his comment is moot.

vectorpush 13y ago
so no need to troll Identify where I was trolling please. i think many people need to be reminded that whenever we talk of "consensus" we talk of politics and not science. That's a red herring. It's a common tactic for those who disagree with a prevailing scientific idea to dismissively chide scientists as playing politics, as if the scientific consensus emerged from political donations instead of from conclusions based on data. Consensus does not imply unanimity or even that the data is correct, but it's only in climate science that we see people actively fight the broad conclusions of the scientific community as a whole.
- jpwagner 13y ago
  Anywhere policy decisions are made, it is practical to vote on alternatives. This is where the "consensus" is justified. The rest of your conspiracy crap has no place here. You are hung-up on a subpopulation that is likely not even on HN.
  - vectorpush 13y ago
    The rest of your conspiracy crap has no place here. You are hung-up on a subpopulation that is likely not even on HN. Where in any of my responses have I said anything about a conspiracy? It seems as if you're the one who is hung up on an ideology you're trying to inject into my argument. Anywhere policy decisions are made, it is practical to vote on alternatives. This is where the "consensus" is justified. Try not to interpret this as trolling but, I don't disagree with this statement. What is your point here?
    - jpwagner 13y ago
      "Where in any of my responses have I said anything about a conspiracy?" as if the scientific consensus emerged from political donations... ...it's only in climate science that we see people actively fight the broad conclusions of the scientific community as a whole.
      - vectorpush 13y ago
        Friend, you're stretching the definition of conspiracy quite a bit here. At the very least, a conspiracy theory would require some accusation of collusion between some parties. There is no secret plan, I'm just pointing out a common rhetorical tactic I disagree with.

jordan0day 13y ago

That's interesting, I got the exact opposite vibe from marknutter's comment. Considering that the link was about a particular report indicating that climate change might be "less severe" than some think, and then subsequent claims that the report was "misleading", I suppose it's not necessarily clear from context which is supposed to be the "bad science" part. I suppose there's a thin line between "trite platitude" and "observant insight". (Which one is this?)

vectorpush 13y ago
Where is the insight? Politics makes bad science? Find me someone who disagrees with that statement; it's an empty shell of a response that says nothing about the topic.

rsync 13y ago

No, let me guess - you believe in the scientific method and skeptical inquiry ... unless the science is "settled".

vectorpush 13y ago
I have no problem with skeptics, my problem is with the blanket labeling of science as politics when you disagree with the conclusions the scientists come up with.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  I think maybe I can prove that this has disintegrated into politics and that it was inevitable. Assume there is a political conspiracy to increase their power and create new taxes and that they are using global warming to get to this. If so we would see a lot of reports, worried politicians and worried scientists (which we would also see if it was real) what we wouldn't see are solutions that aren't politically feasable (say banning cars) but maybe necessary if we are to prevent the climate change and we wouldn't see solutions that don't try to clamor peoples freedom (say putting up mirrors in the ocean to send some of the suns rays back out into space) but might work (IANACS so I don't know if it works). So far what I have seen matches with what I would then expect. People often claim that the skeptics are merely stuges paid by the oil companies - but what does that make of those scientists who are paid by the government? This isn't even talked about. Basically my guess is that the movement significant amounts of money entered the scene science became impossible. Scientists won't share their data because there are grants and money and jobs at stake, they are willing to use underhand tatics to prevent dissenters from publishing (because there are jobs and grants and careers at stake).
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    I think maybe you don't understand what the word "prove" means. > and we wouldn't see solutions that don't try to clamor peoples freedom (say putting up mirrors in the ocean to send some of the suns rays back out into space) but might work (IANACS so I don't know if it works). Actually, solar mirrors or similar space structures have been proposed. The main reason they aren't part of the dominant current recommendations is that they are very high-risk, in terms of engineering, compared to the existing short- and long-term mitigation recommendations, and also that many of the existing mitigations mitigate other risks that share common causes with AGW but which solar mirrors don't.