4 ms·

It sort of amuses me that there are HN climate change denialists, but there aren't really any HN creationists.

crassus 13y ago
Hacker News has climate change "denialists" because climate models are terrible at predicting global temperature[1][2]. Once scientists gain the ability to make accurate predictions, more logic-minded hackers will go along. Hackers like predictive models with a good track record, a la Nate Silver. They dislike emotional bullying. [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje... [2] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...
- timr 13y ago
  It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.
  - crassus 13y ago
    Ah yes. I need to listen to authority and ignore the fact that observed data are falling out the bottom side of their models' 95% confidence intervals. This is how science is done in the modern age.
    - timr 13y ago
      Prove your claim. Cite something other than a picture you found on a blog.
      - sien 13y ago
        This is from another blog, but the figures are from draft versions of the latest IPCC report: http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/ http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/ The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean. This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models that are used for 100 year projections have failed after after 15 years and are running too hot. It should be cause for celebration. The highest warming scenarios are considerably less likely. This also does not mean that an emissions tax and spending on R&D on low emissions energy sources is unwise. But it should be factored into cost benefit analysis of climate change response. Ultimately response to climate change is a public policy problem and is not just based on scientific data and projections. Really, the response boils down to one question, how much is each of us willing to pay per year to respond? $10, $100, $1000, $10000?
        timr 13y ago
        Ok, so you're citing three pictures on a blog. I guess I'm supposed to be 300% more convinced? But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here. The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.
  - guscost 13y ago
    Argumentum ad verecundiam.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Not actually a fallacy, even the informal kind, despite the Latin name.
- mattdmrs 13y ago
  One can argue that science will always have a hard time constructing an accurate model for predicting weather, because of its inherent humongous complexity and nonlinear behavior: > [...] we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.8...
- dmpk2k 13y ago
  Nate Silver comes out very clearly in support of climate change theory in his The Signal and The Noise, and elucidates why, although he goes carefully through the problems and limitations with many climate models. Criticising models is not the same as claiming that anthropogenic global warming is false. Indeed, Nate Silver makes the point that climatologists are their own greatest critics -- they collectively know the limits of their models better than almost everyone else. So I'm not really sure why he's in your comment. If you've read what he writes, then you'll need to be building counterarguments to much of what he wrote on the topic; "models have problems" is just part of it.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Climate models are not intended to precisely predict global temperature on short time scales, so the fact that they cannot does not disprove their accuracy or utility. Furthermore, global climate models are tools for a particular kind of research, not the basis for the theory of global warming--which predates electronic computers by about 40 years. Evolutionary theory cannot reliably predict complex outcomes either. For example, despite the relative biological simplicity of a flu virus, scientists struggle to predict the strain(s) that will be most virulent each year. But I never see posts on HN holding this failure up as proof that evolution is not believable.
TillE 13y ago
It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your worldview, even when there's a mountain of evidence behind it. HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.
- Fomite 13y ago
  Indeed - there's very little money to be made from the Intelligent Designer, so there's little to no appeal. Climate change raises the specter of regulation.
- tracker1 13y ago
  I don't have a problem with climate change as a science, or even something we should be concerned about. My larger issues are regarding the hysteria, and anti-corporatism that tends to go along with it. For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future. First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished? Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis? Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority? It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians. // Totally OT as it is, what are you getting at here?
Mikeb85 13y ago
Well, it's hard to set up an legitimate scientific experiment to prove/disprove something like climate change. The best we can hope for is observations over time. Another issue that's problematic is that when you look at the archaeological evidence, the earth has actually been through several heating/cooling cycles. I mean, the last glacial period was fairly recent, we know the earth is warmer now, and we strongly suspect it was warmer before the glacial period. Furthermore, no proper experiment is possible to explain why the earth is warming at the current rate, if the rate is natural or caused by humans, etc... Questioning the human causes of climate change doesn't automatically lead to creationism, it's simply a rational question to ask.
jlgreco 13y ago
There are a few, but they tend to keep pretty quite. HN tolerates creationism/evolution denialism far less than it tolerates climate change denialism.
sergiosgc 13y ago
It all starts with the term "climate change". Back in the day it was global warming, but when reality didn't fit the models, suddenly climate change became more palatable. That is a minor peeve, actually. The killer factor is the hysteria. It's not that I deny that man is changing the climate - heck, we change just about everything else in our environment, climate would be the exception. I just can't bring myself to defend the position that we must reduce per capita energy usage. Reducing energy usage is equivalent to de-evolution. Putting it another way, environmentalists defend that we can't change anything about the environment to such an absolute extreme, that I smell religious-like zealotry. Fortunately, the solution is a couple of decades away, through electric transportation, coupled with solar/wind renewables. No CO2 but also no "pristine Earth" nonsense.
- sien 13y ago
  The IPCC - which was set up in the 1980s. Note the name. The questions you ask are legitimate.

Hacker News has climate change "denialists" because climate models are terrible at predicting global temperature[1][2]. Once scientists gain the ability to make accurate predictions, more logic-minded hackers will go along. Hackers like predictive models with a good track record, a la Nate Silver. They dislike emotional bullying. [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje... [2] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...

timr 13y ago
It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.
- crassus 13y ago
  Ah yes. I need to listen to authority and ignore the fact that observed data are falling out the bottom side of their models' 95% confidence intervals. This is how science is done in the modern age.
  - timr 13y ago
    Prove your claim. Cite something other than a picture you found on a blog.
    - sien 13y ago
      This is from another blog, but the figures are from draft versions of the latest IPCC report: http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/ http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/ The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean. This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models that are used for 100 year projections have failed after after 15 years and are running too hot. It should be cause for celebration. The highest warming scenarios are considerably less likely. This also does not mean that an emissions tax and spending on R&D on low emissions energy sources is unwise. But it should be factored into cost benefit analysis of climate change response. Ultimately response to climate change is a public policy problem and is not just based on scientific data and projections. Really, the response boils down to one question, how much is each of us willing to pay per year to respond? $10, $100, $1000, $10000?
      - timr 13y ago
        Ok, so you're citing three pictures on a blog. I guess I'm supposed to be 300% more convinced? But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here. The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.
- guscost 13y ago
  Argumentum ad verecundiam.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Not actually a fallacy, even the informal kind, despite the Latin name.
mattdmrs 13y ago
One can argue that science will always have a hard time constructing an accurate model for predicting weather, because of its inherent humongous complexity and nonlinear behavior: > [...] we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.8...
dmpk2k 13y ago
Nate Silver comes out very clearly in support of climate change theory in his The Signal and The Noise, and elucidates why, although he goes carefully through the problems and limitations with many climate models. Criticising models is not the same as claiming that anthropogenic global warming is false. Indeed, Nate Silver makes the point that climatologists are their own greatest critics -- they collectively know the limits of their models better than almost everyone else. So I'm not really sure why he's in your comment. If you've read what he writes, then you'll need to be building counterarguments to much of what he wrote on the topic; "models have problems" is just part of it.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Climate models are not intended to precisely predict global temperature on short time scales, so the fact that they cannot does not disprove their accuracy or utility. Furthermore, global climate models are tools for a particular kind of research, not the basis for the theory of global warming--which predates electronic computers by about 40 years. Evolutionary theory cannot reliably predict complex outcomes either. For example, despite the relative biological simplicity of a flu virus, scientists struggle to predict the strain(s) that will be most virulent each year. But I never see posts on HN holding this failure up as proof that evolution is not believable.

TillE 13y ago

It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your worldview, even when there's a mountain of evidence behind it. HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.

Fomite 13y ago
Indeed - there's very little money to be made from the Intelligent Designer, so there's little to no appeal. Climate change raises the specter of regulation.
tracker1 13y ago
I don't have a problem with climate change as a science, or even something we should be concerned about. My larger issues are regarding the hysteria, and anti-corporatism that tends to go along with it. For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future. First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished? Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis? Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority? It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians. // Totally OT as it is, what are you getting at here?

Mikeb85 13y ago

Well, it's hard to set up an legitimate scientific experiment to prove/disprove something like climate change. The best we can hope for is observations over time. Another issue that's problematic is that when you look at the archaeological evidence, the earth has actually been through several heating/cooling cycles. I mean, the last glacial period was fairly recent, we know the earth is warmer now, and we strongly suspect it was warmer before the glacial period. Furthermore, no proper experiment is possible to explain why the earth is warming at the current rate, if the rate is natural or caused by humans, etc... Questioning the human causes of climate change doesn't automatically lead to creationism, it's simply a rational question to ask.

jlgreco 13y ago

There are a few, but they tend to keep pretty quite. HN tolerates creationism/evolution denialism far less than it tolerates climate change denialism.

sergiosgc 13y ago

It all starts with the term "climate change". Back in the day it was global warming, but when reality didn't fit the models, suddenly climate change became more palatable. That is a minor peeve, actually. The killer factor is the hysteria. It's not that I deny that man is changing the climate - heck, we change just about everything else in our environment, climate would be the exception. I just can't bring myself to defend the position that we must reduce per capita energy usage. Reducing energy usage is equivalent to de-evolution. Putting it another way, environmentalists defend that we can't change anything about the environment to such an absolute extreme, that I smell religious-like zealotry. Fortunately, the solution is a couple of decades away, through electric transportation, coupled with solar/wind renewables. No CO2 but also no "pristine Earth" nonsense.

sien 13y ago
The IPCC - which was set up in the 1980s. Note the name. The questions you ask are legitimate.