3 ms·

> Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising? Yes, see http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923,0,791164.story http

by samiru 13y ago

> Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising? Yes, see http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923,0,791164.story http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncerta... > Is the arctic icecap not rapidly getting smaller? Well, it's not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli... > I believe even the rising sea level is already measurable Sure. Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819141610.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819141610.ht...

acqq 13y ago
Giving the links to the articles which present the views of denialists as facts aren't proof of anything but that there are journalist and media that distort what the most scientist believe. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344
- talmand 13y ago
  Three of the Rules of Radicals: #3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. All in one sentence at that. Excellent.
  - sally888 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - talmand 13y ago
      But I wasn't attacking, I was congratulating.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
Unlike ACQQ[1], I'm not going to assert that these are climate change denialists, they may well be, but it's irrelevant. You're using news/op-ed citations as evidence for basic questions of fact. Science news almost universally overstates the effects of particular findings. These sources are more or less fine for announcing a new finding, but when you start to get into debating particular facts, they are utterly inappropriate sources. In a forum such as Hacker News, you can expect most participants to be capable of reading the relevant portion of a peer reviewed study, and so that is the sort of citation that should be offered. News/op-ed articles bring nothing to the discussion. And just to be clear, the ancestors our posts made unsubstantiated assertions based on their interpretation of the evidence, so in a sense, they are citing themselves, which in this sort of discussion, I think is fine. It's the appeal to low quality scientific authorities that is the issue. [1]No offense intended by this at all, just giving a different perspective. ACQQ's comment was a catalyst for my own comment.
mcv 13y ago
> Well, it's not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli.... Really? The Daily Mail? And you think a one-year fluctuation contradicts a long term trend? Had you actually looked into this subject, instead of clinging to some random image that seems to say what you wish to be true, you might have known that 2013 is still the sixth lowest year for arctic icecap size. And the other 5 are in the past 6 years. You think a random image proves anything, but the only thing it proves is your own ignorance on the subject. The arctic icecap is rapidly getting smaller.

by samiru 13y ago

acqq 13y ago

Giving the links to the articles which present the views of denialists as facts aren't proof of anything but that there are journalist and media that distort what the most scientist believe. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344

talmand 13y ago
Three of the Rules of Radicals: #3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. All in one sentence at that. Excellent.
- sally888 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - talmand 13y ago
    But I wasn't attacking, I was congratulating.

shawn-furyan 13y ago

Unlike ACQQ[1], I'm not going to assert that these are climate change denialists, they may well be, but it's irrelevant. You're using news/op-ed citations as evidence for basic questions of fact. Science news almost universally overstates the effects of particular findings. These sources are more or less fine for announcing a new finding, but when you start to get into debating particular facts, they are utterly inappropriate sources. In a forum such as Hacker News, you can expect most participants to be capable of reading the relevant portion of a peer reviewed study, and so that is the sort of citation that should be offered. News/op-ed articles bring nothing to the discussion. And just to be clear, the ancestors our posts made unsubstantiated assertions based on their interpretation of the evidence, so in a sense, they are citing themselves, which in this sort of discussion, I think is fine. It's the appeal to low quality scientific authorities that is the issue. [1]No offense intended by this at all, just giving a different perspective. ACQQ's comment was a catalyst for my own comment.

mcv 13y ago

> Well, it's not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli.... Really? The Daily Mail? And you think a one-year fluctuation contradicts a long term trend? Had you actually looked into this subject, instead of clinging to some random image that seems to say what you wish to be true, you might have known that 2013 is still the sixth lowest year for arctic icecap size. And the other 5 are in the past 6 years. You think a random image proves anything, but the only thing it proves is your own ignorance on the subject. The arctic icecap is rapidly getting smaller.