4 ms·

"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a pla

by brc 17y ago

"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a plan to deceive others, and know they are lying the whole time. It's different to when people fervently believe in something and get involved in groupthink, ignoring dissenting opinions and developing an 'us and them' mindset. "You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right?" No, I don't. But then I'm not asking anyone to give me their money, either. The Earths climate has always been changing, and the causes have never been fully understood. Why did the medieval warming period occur? Why the little ice age after that? It's not up to sceptics of a theory to provide a competing theory that's better. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory to prove it is true. Something many people believe has not yet been achieved with the AGW theory.

jbooth 17y ago
The scientists aren't asking for anyone's money, either. They're simply giving their best forecast. Here's the thing, (and mind you 95% of the people who've studied this for longer than 5 minutes on cable news commercial breaks agree on it), the carbon theory makes sense and there's a lot of correlation. If they're wrong, then all we'll have done is get off of fossil fuels, which we have to do anyways, and leave cleaner air for our children. If you're wrong? I mean, do you buy homeowner's insurance or flood insurance? Why not earth insurance? Lastly, to revisit the original point, regarding groupthink and dissenting opinions -- if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation. The earth is definitely warming, ice is definitely melting, and atmospheric CO2 definitely causes at least ocean acidification which is massively disruptive itself. That's just basic chemistry. It also seems to be the most likely candidate for the cause of global warming, based on what we know. So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer.
- doulaimi 17y ago
- brc 17y ago
  I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer." No, of course not. None of my posts indicate a dislike for clean renewable energy. I am an enthusiast of electric cars, passionate about ocean pollution, believer in locally based sustainability. It would be my ideal to have a self sufficient home with no fossil fuels providing energy. Hopefully I'll see that in my lifetime. However, I stop at correlation=causation, I distrust any non-testable computer models intensely (be they of the economic or climatic type) I'm also dubious about the 2% - it's also based on computer modelling and government forecasts, none of which I place the slightest faith in. The scientists are asking for peoples money - that's the whole point. Directly through more research grants and funding. Indirectly by asking for wealth transfers from people. "if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation." I completely reject that statement. I don't have to have an alternative view on any theory. Any theory on anything is completely rejectable without coming up with an alternative. It's perfectly logical to say "I don't have a better explanation, but you've failed to convince me".
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, clearly several people are doing it, and I'd wager that they're also Republican voters, if we're going to play the statistics. That sort of rating seems to be abusive to me, and against the HN ethos, particularly if you can't be bothered to form a cogent response. Regarding not being convinced -- fine. But what's your incentive to go so far out of your way to discredit them? Correlation doesn't equal causation but when we have a plausible theory, correlation, and no other theories that come even close as far as the smell test, well, you've gotta do better than crossing your arms and proclaiming yourself unconvinced to be credible. Given that you agree that we should move to clean and renewable energy, what's your investment in tarring the scientific community? You try to bring it to grants.. what's that, a few dozen million worldwide for the whole climatology community? I'd think anyone who labels themselves intellectual would be proud to sponsor pure research. Basically, where's your beef come from, if it's not politics? Why aren't you trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution? You don't need an alternative to be unconvinced, right? That'd be easier than the warming one, frankly.
jbooth 17y ago
And brc, seriously, knock off the downrates for political disagreement. I'm being polite here, and whoever is doing this is pretty much proving that they're not interested in the truth, they're interested in politics.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? This is why I downvoted you. I grew up in a religious environment, although I am not religious now. Your statement reminded me almost exactly of the way I watched religious conversion being pitched to new prospects when I was a child. On one hand, there's a chance of total damnation. On the other, if you make these simple commitments, all will be good. And the commitments you make are good for you in either case. You have been doing wrong. Now is the chance to repent and change your ways. How long will you stay childishly in your selfish ways? The similarity was almost spooky. What can I say? I didn't like the style of the comment. Your downvote had nothing to do with the any sort of politics that I'm aware of. While I don't agree with you, carry on the conversation. I'm sure my little downvote will easily be compensated by dozens of other votes from people who didn't have my response to your particular turn of phrase. No worries, mate.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, there's multiple people doing it, and frankly, attempting to silence opinions you disagree with seems much more religiously invested to me than simple hedging against the worst case. Anyways, I hope you're right but I fear that you aren't.

by brc 17y ago

jbooth 17y ago

The scientists aren't asking for anyone's money, either. They're simply giving their best forecast. Here's the thing, (and mind you 95% of the people who've studied this for longer than 5 minutes on cable news commercial breaks agree on it), the carbon theory makes sense and there's a lot of correlation. If they're wrong, then all we'll have done is get off of fossil fuels, which we have to do anyways, and leave cleaner air for our children. If you're wrong? I mean, do you buy homeowner's insurance or flood insurance? Why not earth insurance? Lastly, to revisit the original point, regarding groupthink and dissenting opinions -- if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation. The earth is definitely warming, ice is definitely melting, and atmospheric CO2 definitely causes at least ocean acidification which is massively disruptive itself. That's just basic chemistry. It also seems to be the most likely candidate for the cause of global warming, based on what we know. So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer.

doulaimi 17y ago
brc 17y ago
I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer." No, of course not. None of my posts indicate a dislike for clean renewable energy. I am an enthusiast of electric cars, passionate about ocean pollution, believer in locally based sustainability. It would be my ideal to have a self sufficient home with no fossil fuels providing energy. Hopefully I'll see that in my lifetime. However, I stop at correlation=causation, I distrust any non-testable computer models intensely (be they of the economic or climatic type) I'm also dubious about the 2% - it's also based on computer modelling and government forecasts, none of which I place the slightest faith in. The scientists are asking for peoples money - that's the whole point. Directly through more research grants and funding. Indirectly by asking for wealth transfers from people. "if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation." I completely reject that statement. I don't have to have an alternative view on any theory. Any theory on anything is completely rejectable without coming up with an alternative. It's perfectly logical to say "I don't have a better explanation, but you've failed to convince me".
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, clearly several people are doing it, and I'd wager that they're also Republican voters, if we're going to play the statistics. That sort of rating seems to be abusive to me, and against the HN ethos, particularly if you can't be bothered to form a cogent response. Regarding not being convinced -- fine. But what's your incentive to go so far out of your way to discredit them? Correlation doesn't equal causation but when we have a plausible theory, correlation, and no other theories that come even close as far as the smell test, well, you've gotta do better than crossing your arms and proclaiming yourself unconvinced to be credible. Given that you agree that we should move to clean and renewable energy, what's your investment in tarring the scientific community? You try to bring it to grants.. what's that, a few dozen million worldwide for the whole climatology community? I'd think anyone who labels themselves intellectual would be proud to sponsor pure research. Basically, where's your beef come from, if it's not politics? Why aren't you trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution? You don't need an alternative to be unconvinced, right? That'd be easier than the warming one, frankly.

jbooth 17y ago

And brc, seriously, knock off the downrates for political disagreement. I'm being polite here, and whoever is doing this is pretty much proving that they're not interested in the truth, they're interested in politics.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? This is why I downvoted you. I grew up in a religious environment, although I am not religious now. Your statement reminded me almost exactly of the way I watched religious conversion being pitched to new prospects when I was a child. On one hand, there's a chance of total damnation. On the other, if you make these simple commitments, all will be good. And the commitments you make are good for you in either case. You have been doing wrong. Now is the chance to repent and change your ways. How long will you stay childishly in your selfish ways? The similarity was almost spooky. What can I say? I didn't like the style of the comment. Your downvote had nothing to do with the any sort of politics that I'm aware of. While I don't agree with you, carry on the conversation. I'm sure my little downvote will easily be compensated by dozens of other votes from people who didn't have my response to your particular turn of phrase. No worries, mate.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, there's multiple people doing it, and frankly, attempting to silence opinions you disagree with seems much more religiously invested to me than simple hedging against the worst case. Anyways, I hope you're right but I fear that you aren't.