9 ms·

This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individu

This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles. I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.

tosseraccount 11y ago
I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it actually said "well, this might be some evidence for possibly maybe supporting something". This is a hazard in MANY fields. Many people know this. We Hacker News readers ran in to this a couple of days ago. Somebody said "Fasting helps in cancer therapy" and listed some science papers. It was voted up. The actual papers DID NOT SAY THAT. They said "this small sample might provide some evidence but more study needs to be done". These are separate things and careful readers can discern this. Appeal to Authority or to a Mob or to Fashion is NOT science. We need proof or it's not settled science.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves". For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing. EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report: The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    OK. I'm curious. What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ? I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". [edit: nobody up to it ? ]
    - spdustin 11y ago
      Am I to understand that you'll only "bet the climate" if it's a sure thing? I'm curious to know if all important decisions you make are backed only by "virtually certain" odds that the outcome of your decision will be as you predicted. Not trolling, honestly. I really want to better understand this mindset.
      - tosseraccount 11y ago
        Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. "Virtual certainty" may not always be "settled science". I do think we should curtail pollution; regardless of the scientific certainty on man as primary cause of global warming.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        > Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. No it didn't. > Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. No it didn't. > Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. No it didn't. All of those are made up facts that bear no resemblance to reality. Science doesn't say or think things, it merely shows the current state of evidence for theories and when new evidence comes along, wrong theories are disproven. That's what science does, it disproves ideas. A scientist likely once theorized that gay was a mental disease, the process of science disproved that theory; ditto for everything else you said. You're confusing some scientists bad theories for science itself, they are entirely different things.
- lotso 11y ago
  You're right, a HN commentator summarizing research papers is much different than thousands of scientists summarizing research papers.
Roodgorf 11y ago
This post about Wikipedia's policy regarding secondary sources seems to articulate this idea pretty well. http://weskaggs.net/?p=5053 http://weskaggs.net/?p=5053

tosseraccount 11y ago

I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it actually said "well, this might be some evidence for possibly maybe supporting something". This is a hazard in MANY fields. Many people know this. We Hacker News readers ran in to this a couple of days ago. Somebody said "Fasting helps in cancer therapy" and listed some science papers. It was voted up. The actual papers DID NOT SAY THAT. They said "this small sample might provide some evidence but more study needs to be done". These are separate things and careful readers can discern this. Appeal to Authority or to a Mob or to Fashion is NOT science. We need proof or it's not settled science.

hackuser 11y ago
> Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves". For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing. EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report: The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  OK. I'm curious. What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ? I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". [edit: nobody up to it ? ]
  - spdustin 11y ago
    Am I to understand that you'll only "bet the climate" if it's a sure thing? I'm curious to know if all important decisions you make are backed only by "virtually certain" odds that the outcome of your decision will be as you predicted. Not trolling, honestly. I really want to better understand this mindset.
    - tosseraccount 11y ago
      Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. "Virtual certainty" may not always be "settled science". I do think we should curtail pollution; regardless of the scientific certainty on man as primary cause of global warming.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. No it didn't. > Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. No it didn't. > Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. No it didn't. All of those are made up facts that bear no resemblance to reality. Science doesn't say or think things, it merely shows the current state of evidence for theories and when new evidence comes along, wrong theories are disproven. That's what science does, it disproves ideas. A scientist likely once theorized that gay was a mental disease, the process of science disproved that theory; ditto for everything else you said. You're confusing some scientists bad theories for science itself, they are entirely different things.
lotso 11y ago
You're right, a HN commentator summarizing research papers is much different than thousands of scientists summarizing research papers.

Roodgorf 11y ago

This post about Wikipedia's policy regarding secondary sources seems to articulate this idea pretty well. http://weskaggs.net/?p=5053 http://weskaggs.net/?p=5053