6 ms·

I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. Here is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. Here is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population." It seems we don't even know how the little ice age happened. How do we know these same forces aren't changing our environment now? We've been having all these strange temperatures lately and also this: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/huge-solar-storm-hits-earth-power-grid-and-gps-could-be-disrupted-but-auroras-might-be-seen-10338332.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... The problem is that it's too political now. When claimed scientists are coming out and saying the science is "settled", I know we have a problem. Science is never really settled.

paulhauggis 11y ago
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    That essay is not, however, an invitation to the Galileo gambit.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Given that the essay links approvingly to Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming address, I think you might understand it better if you read the whole thing again.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Paul, I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explains the response: * Your questions do seem a little like assertions with question marks at the end, because they repeat some climate denial propaganda. In fairness, maybe that's all you've read (Suggestion: Don't get your climate science from mainstream media that is at all politicized (e.g., most UK newspapers, Fox, Huffington Post, etc.) It's a waste of time and misinformation. Try Nature (nature.com), Science (sciencemag.org), New Scientist, Scientific American; even the NY Times is better, though IME very incomplete). * Many of the questions are easily answered with a little research, which make them look more like assertions and not like questions from someone interested in learning. * Unfortunately, easily researched questions that repeat inflamatory propaganda don't add much to the conversation. Perhaps on a less inflamatory subject, where others were less tired of propaganda and less concerned with it taking over the conversation, nobody would have downvoted you.
  - guscost 11y ago
    As someone who definitely doesn't agree with the mainstream opinion about all this, it comes across as fundamentally un-serious when you casually refer to the opposing argument as "propaganda" without any elaboration. I've used that kind of rhetoric probably too often and it is counterproductive. If you are genuinely interested in communicating what you believe to be good information to those who don't agree, please consider avoiding that kind of language.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      I generally agree, but at the same time I'm not going to create a false equivalency. A significant portion of climate change denial is, in fact, a propaganda campaign. The points are not fact or information, but propaganda. Still, I could have and should have phrased it in a less inflamatory manner. Thanks for the reminder.
- guscost 11y ago
  Some advice: there is definitely an acceptable way to challenge the mainstream here, but I don't think you've succeeded at it. Since all of your points have appeared here before, my suggestion is not to make them all at once (which encourages people who disagree with you not to bother responding and just to downvote) but rather to pick one or two of the most relevant points and back them up with extreme detail, meaning more than a link to Wikipedia. For example, if we're talking about the proxy studies, you can mention how central they are to the larger debate and then go into detail about the long history of problems like the short-centered PC analysis in at least one of the MBH papers, or Briffa's divergence problem, or more recently the all-but-retracted Marcott paper. Or alternatively, respond to someone claiming that the skeptics are completely responsible for politicizing the subject by pointing out that since the alarmists are demanding all the change, action, new laws etc, there is a very significant burden of proof on their shoulders. Then say that claiming "the science is settled" so they can skip to the legislation is very much why the subject is so politicized today. And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on." This was my entire point of posting everything, and the HN community made it quite nicely: real science can't be accomplished because group think and politics are getting in the way. Silencing political opinions (this has become a political opinion now) is never the answer. Thanks HN, I just wanted to thank you all for making my point for me, so I didn't really need to.
    - guscost 11y ago
      Apart from the rhetorical strategy, the only other suggestion is just to be polite and edit out as much snark as you can do without, like for example that last paragraph. You may find that people here are more welcoming of (tactful) contrarian and minority viewpoints than your average internet place, although they do like a lively argument.
paulhauggis 11y ago
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
hackuser 11y ago
> I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. It's a great question, one which has occupied many scientists. It has been addressed in detail in the scientific research. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 > The problem is that it's too political now. Remember that's a well-documented, established technique often used by people who want to obstruct things; create so much noise (as in signal-to-noise) and FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt) as to confuse the public about the facts. In every field, you always can find someone to say anything on TV; heck, you can find tax attorneys who will say you don't have to pay income tax (good luck with that!). > When claimed scientists are coming out and saying the science is "settled", I know we have a problem. Science is never really settled. 'Settled science' is jargon; it distinguishes theories that are still up in the air (string theory) from theories that have proven themselves as very reliable (gravity). Nothing in the world is ever "settled", but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change: IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans; the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans" Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. "the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?" Well, if we are going to use this argument, we could very well think the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun. What about our treatment of women and minorities? Everyone did it, so it MUST be the correct behavior..right? How about smoking? Even Doctors promoted it at the time (they are experts, right?). Being homosexual and transgender was seen as a mental illness for decades. But all the experts agreed, so it must again be correct, right? I guess it is a mental illness!! The experts all agreed..I can't go against them.. Even more recently, "Hands up don't shoot". Forensic evidence came out and said that it never happened, yet we have mainstream media and seemingly intelligent people continuing on with the stretching of the truth to fit a narrative. "but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change" Yes, the climate is changing (a fact). But we still don't know if it's completely due to man-made changes or nature. You also left out government funding and the politics around academia, which is very important when it comes to studies. It's pretty well known in the academic world that if you don't support the current narrative, you will not get funding. I worked for many years in Academia and it's 99% politics if you want to actually get funding. If someone in a higher position doesn't like you for any reason, you can kiss it goodbye. Climate change (also known as Global warming and Global cooling depending on what the new narrative is for the day) has been talked about since the 1970s. None of the predictions by scientists at that time came even close to true and it was a majority..just like today. Science shouldn't be about trying to fit the evidence to a narrative. It should be trying to figure out the truth. If you can't even debate me on these simple questions, how can I ever believe what you are saying is true? Even the behavior here on HN is pretty telling. I ask a few questions and I am met with: hostility, anger, and people using words like "fucking". If it is this bad here, I can't imagine the climate scientists with contrary evidence. It's just like during the middle ages. Except they won't be burned at the stake, they will lose their careers.
paulhauggis 11y ago
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
- dang 11y ago
  "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gnaritas 11y ago
  You aren't being intellectual, not in the least.
- prawn 11y ago
  Going a bit grey isn't being "immediately silenced". People can still read your comment. I think you're reading too much into the "the science is settled" comment. It's a field where powerful interests work aggressively to discredit a majority view of scientists, and it's likely that some (magnified by the media) may use a term like that out of frustration to imply consensus and a wish to have policy makers progress on action. I know it's easy to find an aberration on Wikipedia, but the pros know all that stuff, they live it every minute of the day.

paulhauggis 11y ago

I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.

jessaustin 11y ago
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- davidgerard 11y ago
  That essay is not, however, an invitation to the Galileo gambit.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Given that the essay links approvingly to Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming address, I think you might understand it better if you read the whole thing again.
hackuser 11y ago
Paul, I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explains the response: * Your questions do seem a little like assertions with question marks at the end, because they repeat some climate denial propaganda. In fairness, maybe that's all you've read (Suggestion: Don't get your climate science from mainstream media that is at all politicized (e.g., most UK newspapers, Fox, Huffington Post, etc.) It's a waste of time and misinformation. Try Nature (nature.com), Science (sciencemag.org), New Scientist, Scientific American; even the NY Times is better, though IME very incomplete). * Many of the questions are easily answered with a little research, which make them look more like assertions and not like questions from someone interested in learning. * Unfortunately, easily researched questions that repeat inflamatory propaganda don't add much to the conversation. Perhaps on a less inflamatory subject, where others were less tired of propaganda and less concerned with it taking over the conversation, nobody would have downvoted you.
- guscost 11y ago
  As someone who definitely doesn't agree with the mainstream opinion about all this, it comes across as fundamentally un-serious when you casually refer to the opposing argument as "propaganda" without any elaboration. I've used that kind of rhetoric probably too often and it is counterproductive. If you are genuinely interested in communicating what you believe to be good information to those who don't agree, please consider avoiding that kind of language.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    I generally agree, but at the same time I'm not going to create a false equivalency. A significant portion of climate change denial is, in fact, a propaganda campaign. The points are not fact or information, but propaganda. Still, I could have and should have phrased it in a less inflamatory manner. Thanks for the reminder.
guscost 11y ago
Some advice: there is definitely an acceptable way to challenge the mainstream here, but I don't think you've succeeded at it. Since all of your points have appeared here before, my suggestion is not to make them all at once (which encourages people who disagree with you not to bother responding and just to downvote) but rather to pick one or two of the most relevant points and back them up with extreme detail, meaning more than a link to Wikipedia. For example, if we're talking about the proxy studies, you can mention how central they are to the larger debate and then go into detail about the long history of problems like the short-centered PC analysis in at least one of the MBH papers, or Briffa's divergence problem, or more recently the all-but-retracted Marcott paper. Or alternatively, respond to someone claiming that the skeptics are completely responsible for politicizing the subject by pointing out that since the alarmists are demanding all the change, action, new laws etc, there is a very significant burden of proof on their shoulders. Then say that claiming "the science is settled" so they can skip to the legislation is very much why the subject is so politicized today. And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on." This was my entire point of posting everything, and the HN community made it quite nicely: real science can't be accomplished because group think and politics are getting in the way. Silencing political opinions (this has become a political opinion now) is never the answer. Thanks HN, I just wanted to thank you all for making my point for me, so I didn't really need to.
  - guscost 11y ago
    Apart from the rhetorical strategy, the only other suggestion is just to be polite and edit out as much snark as you can do without, like for example that last paragraph. You may find that people here are more welcoming of (tactful) contrarian and minority viewpoints than your average internet place, although they do like a lively argument.

paulhauggis 11y ago

I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.

hackuser 11y ago

> I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. It's a great question, one which has occupied many scientists. It has been addressed in detail in the scientific research. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 > The problem is that it's too political now. Remember that's a well-documented, established technique often used by people who want to obstruct things; create so much noise (as in signal-to-noise) and FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt) as to confuse the public about the facts. In every field, you always can find someone to say anything on TV; heck, you can find tax attorneys who will say you don't have to pay income tax (good luck with that!). > When claimed scientists are coming out and saying the science is "settled", I know we have a problem. Science is never really settled. 'Settled science' is jargon; it distinguishes theories that are still up in the air (string theory) from theories that have proven themselves as very reliable (gravity). Nothing in the world is ever "settled", but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change: IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans; the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?

paulhauggis 11y ago
"IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans" Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. "the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?" Well, if we are going to use this argument, we could very well think the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun. What about our treatment of women and minorities? Everyone did it, so it MUST be the correct behavior..right? How about smoking? Even Doctors promoted it at the time (they are experts, right?). Being homosexual and transgender was seen as a mental illness for decades. But all the experts agreed, so it must again be correct, right? I guess it is a mental illness!! The experts all agreed..I can't go against them.. Even more recently, "Hands up don't shoot". Forensic evidence came out and said that it never happened, yet we have mainstream media and seemingly intelligent people continuing on with the stretching of the truth to fit a narrative. "but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change" Yes, the climate is changing (a fact). But we still don't know if it's completely due to man-made changes or nature. You also left out government funding and the politics around academia, which is very important when it comes to studies. It's pretty well known in the academic world that if you don't support the current narrative, you will not get funding. I worked for many years in Academia and it's 99% politics if you want to actually get funding. If someone in a higher position doesn't like you for any reason, you can kiss it goodbye. Climate change (also known as Global warming and Global cooling depending on what the new narrative is for the day) has been talked about since the 1970s. None of the predictions by scientists at that time came even close to true and it was a majority..just like today. Science shouldn't be about trying to fit the evidence to a narrative. It should be trying to figure out the truth. If you can't even debate me on these simple questions, how can I ever believe what you are saying is true? Even the behavior here on HN is pretty telling. I ask a few questions and I am met with: hostility, anger, and people using words like "fucking". If it is this bad here, I can't imagine the climate scientists with contrary evidence. It's just like during the middle ages. Except they won't be burned at the stake, they will lose their careers.

paulhauggis 11y ago

I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.

dang 11y ago
"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
gnaritas 11y ago
You aren't being intellectual, not in the least.
prawn 11y ago
Going a bit grey isn't being "immediately silenced". People can still read your comment. I think you're reading too much into the "the science is settled" comment. It's a field where powerful interests work aggressively to discredit a majority view of scientists, and it's likely that some (magnified by the media) may use a term like that out of frustration to imply consensus and a wish to have policy makers progress on action. I know it's easy to find an aberration on Wikipedia, but the pros know all that stuff, they live it every minute of the day.