3 ms·

With all the talk of negatively being removed from HN, why aren't we removing articles like this? It's so completely biased and negative. It will do nothing b

With all the talk of negatively being removed from HN, why aren't we removing articles like this? It's so completely biased and negative. It will do nothing but insight flame wars. "Everyone who denies climate change has the same stirring message," Nobody is denying that the climate is actually changing. We are skeptical that a cycle that has happened for 1000 of years is now only being effected by man made contributions. My issue is that we don't even know how much of it is actually due to cycles, how can we possibly put all of the blame on something man-made. Weather, which is the first step to climate, can't even be predicted past 2 weeks from the best scientists in the world. How are we now able to predict something that will happen in 50 or 100 years? I see the same tactics used when I'm buying a car: If we don't give the government more money, we are all going to die a horrible death because the earth will increase a few degrees. This isn't science, it's marketing. It's also suspect when many forums, which claim to be open and honest, will not allow alternative view points. I'm also tired of hearing the phrase "settled science". Science is never really settled. When it is, it's called religion.

mikeash 11y ago
The motion of individual air particles, which is the first step to aerodynamics, can't even be predicted past a couple of nanoseconds. How are we now able to predict something that will happen in minutes or hours? There may be good arguments to be made against the idea of anthropogenic climate change. But if there are, Republicans aren't making them, and neither are you. Unfortunately, most people have a hard time distinguishing "your arguments are bad" from "you are wrong." It looks like the "skeptic" position is also wrong, but the fundamental problem is that it's based on irrationality.

mikeash 11y ago

The motion of individual air particles, which is the first step to aerodynamics, can't even be predicted past a couple of nanoseconds. How are we now able to predict something that will happen in minutes or hours? There may be good arguments to be made against the idea of anthropogenic climate change. But if there are, Republicans aren't making them, and neither are you. Unfortunately, most people have a hard time distinguishing "your arguments are bad" from "you are wrong." It looks like the "skeptic" position is also wrong, but the fundamental problem is that it's based on irrationality.