5 ms·

I'm happy that the CRU hack has introduced all of this healthy skepticism back into the debate. Any time people are so sensationalist about anything, there sho

I'm happy that the CRU hack has introduced all of this healthy skepticism back into the debate. Any time people are so sensationalist about anything, there should be a lot of concern.

dasil003 17y ago
The skepticism is good, but my concern is that the issue has become so politicized, and people are so emotionally invested in the outcomes, that true objectivity is nearly impossible. Mix in natural variations and the fact that the timescales are not intuitively understood by most people, and I really doubt we'll be able to save ourselves from massive global catastrophe if that's the way this ends up going. In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. That, combined with a rabid consumerist mentality is rapidly leading us down a rode of polluted resource-exhaustion.
- lukifer 17y ago
  > In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. Couldn't agree more. We're not going to get anywhere by turning the issue into a polemic "debate". We should be focusing on central tenets so obvious they're impossible to disagree with: wealth is derived from the underlying ecosystem of nature, and securing the long-term health of that system is in everyone's best interest. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
  - vannevar 17y ago
    Whereas the continued trumped up 'debate' over AGW demonstrates that our society is full of wealthy old men quite willing to sacrifice the distant future for their own profit today. There is no scientific debate here, only the appearance of one. And in the end, that's all those corrupt old men need.
m_eiman 17y ago
There's a difference between skepticism and paranoid conspiracy theories, though. And I've had more than enough of the latter.
- cwan 17y ago
  Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"? I'm sympathetic and partial to the view that AGW is probable but I'm not married to the view. I also question the policy prescriptions based on the underlying science given the costs. It strikes me as somewhat arrogant and insulting though when others ask seemingly legitimate questions, "scientists" and policy advocates attempt to crush those who ask them instead of at least attempting to make a reasoned response. Immediately they label these people as "deniers" / "skeptics" or even paranoid. Now we learn that one of the leading climate institutes (not just some university in the UK) didn't keep/destroyed original data sets and even a number of their defenders are calling for heads to roll (e.g. George Monbiot). From TierneyLab @ the NYT (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-climate-debate/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-c...): "I’ve long thought that the biggest danger in climate research is the temptation for scientists to lose their skepticism and go along with the “consensus” about global warming. That’s partly because it’s easy for everyone to get caught up in “informational cascades”, and partly because there are so many psychic and financial rewards rewards for working on a problem that seems to be a crisis. We all like to think that our work is vitally useful in solving a major social problem — and the more major the problem seems, the more money society is liable to spend on it. "I’m not trying to suggest that climate change isn’t a real threat, or that scientists are deliberately hyping it. But when they look at evidence of the threat, they may be subject to the confirmation bias — seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate — the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions — it’s important to keep taking skeptical looks at the data. How open do you think climate scientists are to skeptical views, and to letting outsiders double-check their data and calculations?"
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"? No, I didn't read the article. But lately there have been far too many items on the HN front page that are nothing more than conspiracy theory ramblings, and with comments to match. There -have- been a few with reasonable takes on the scandal, but most are just... bleh. That so many, in my opinion, stupid items end up on the front page annoys me for two reasons: 1) they're not "hacker" (and not business either) and obscure real content, and 2) it lowers my respect for the HN community.

I'm happy that the CRU hack has introduced all of this healthy skepticism back into the debate. Any time people are so sensationalist about anything, there should be a lot of concern.

dasil003 17y ago

The skepticism is good, but my concern is that the issue has become so politicized, and people are so emotionally invested in the outcomes, that true objectivity is nearly impossible. Mix in natural variations and the fact that the timescales are not intuitively understood by most people, and I really doubt we'll be able to save ourselves from massive global catastrophe if that's the way this ends up going. In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. That, combined with a rabid consumerist mentality is rapidly leading us down a rode of polluted resource-exhaustion.

lukifer 17y ago
> In my mind, the real problem is that we do not account for the value of natural resources and the environment in our economics. Couldn't agree more. We're not going to get anywhere by turning the issue into a polemic "debate". We should be focusing on central tenets so obvious they're impossible to disagree with: wealth is derived from the underlying ecosystem of nature, and securing the long-term health of that system is in everyone's best interest. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
- vannevar 17y ago
  Whereas the continued trumped up 'debate' over AGW demonstrates that our society is full of wealthy old men quite willing to sacrifice the distant future for their own profit today. There is no scientific debate here, only the appearance of one. And in the end, that's all those corrupt old men need.

m_eiman 17y ago

There's a difference between skepticism and paranoid conspiracy theories, though. And I've had more than enough of the latter.

cwan 17y ago
Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"? I'm sympathetic and partial to the view that AGW is probable but I'm not married to the view. I also question the policy prescriptions based on the underlying science given the costs. It strikes me as somewhat arrogant and insulting though when others ask seemingly legitimate questions, "scientists" and policy advocates attempt to crush those who ask them instead of at least attempting to make a reasoned response. Immediately they label these people as "deniers" / "skeptics" or even paranoid. Now we learn that one of the leading climate institutes (not just some university in the UK) didn't keep/destroyed original data sets and even a number of their defenders are calling for heads to roll (e.g. George Monbiot). From TierneyLab @ the NYT (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-climate-debate/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/hacking-the-c...): "I’ve long thought that the biggest danger in climate research is the temptation for scientists to lose their skepticism and go along with the “consensus” about global warming. That’s partly because it’s easy for everyone to get caught up in “informational cascades”, and partly because there are so many psychic and financial rewards rewards for working on a problem that seems to be a crisis. We all like to think that our work is vitally useful in solving a major social problem — and the more major the problem seems, the more money society is liable to spend on it. "I’m not trying to suggest that climate change isn’t a real threat, or that scientists are deliberately hyping it. But when they look at evidence of the threat, they may be subject to the confirmation bias — seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate — the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions — it’s important to keep taking skeptical looks at the data. How open do you think climate scientists are to skeptical views, and to letting outsiders double-check their data and calculations?"
- m_eiman 17y ago
  Are you saying that you think this article is an example of "paranoid conspiracy theories"? No, I didn't read the article. But lately there have been far too many items on the HN front page that are nothing more than conspiracy theory ramblings, and with comments to match. There -have- been a few with reasonable takes on the scandal, but most are just... bleh. That so many, in my opinion, stupid items end up on the front page annoys me for two reasons: 1) they're not "hacker" (and not business either) and obscure real content, and 2) it lowers my respect for the HN community.