Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arnt | Hacker News Reader

Some people appear to believe that if the average temperature of the globe increases by two degrees, then the average temperature in May in Munich must increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Timbuktu in June must increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Panjim in July must increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Valparaiso in August must increase by 2.00 degrees, and so on and so forth.

Then these people are astonished when it doesn't work that way. "Oh! Some places heat up more, others less, or actually don't heat up!" or "Oh! The summers and winters don't change in the same way?"

Depressing.

View on HN

This is one of the biggest problems of the modern world. So much of what we know is based on science, but there is so little scientific literacy that it is very easy to convince people of incorrect things. For example, global warming deniers are all the time using cheap arguments like this. Because you need to have some understanding of logic to identify logical fallacies, it is increasingly easy to create bogus arguments to support things like creationism, conspiracy theories, etc.

If science has taught us anything, it's that Science is not a Revealed Truth but must be prone to criticism, testing, and new insights, not to mention the discovery of the unknown.

Using 'global warming deniers,' a not-so-subtle comparison to Holocaust deniers, to denigrate an entire body of scientists (scientists, not politicians) who disagree about the degree, level, impact or even nature of global warming, is doing science on a whole a great disservice.

Yes, logical fallacies are frequently used by all types to make cheap arguments. The point is no better made than in this comment.

Except, as has so often been pointed out, the "entire body of scientists" who reject AGW is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the entire body of climate scientists.

And every so often it comes out that one of the high-profile deniers is on the payroll of some company that benefits from the confusion they stir up!

You could probably find an "entire body of scientists" who believe in a flat-earth theory, and they too are worth ignoring or characterizing as "deniers".

I think you're the one making a comparison to holocaust deniers, with your frankly stinky rhetoric. Where I come from a denier is simply someone who denies something.

As for an entire body of science - yes, all six of them. That climate change isn't happening is not a serious, majority, or even realistic view. It's based on wishful thinking and there's a strong correlation between "scientists" who don't believe (what the hell has it got to do with belief?!) in climate change and those same scientists believing that a deity farted out the earth some 4000 years ago (young earth creationism).

You're now going to reply and tell me that we should carefully consider the evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax placed by satan, right?

> scientists believing that a deity farted out the earth some 4000 years ago (young earth creationism). You're now going to reply and tell me that we should carefully consider the evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax placed by satan, right?

Stinky rhetoric, indeed!

Let's not relitigate the use of the word "denier" here. If we can never again use any word that's ever been used in the same phrase as the word Holocaust, what does that benefit us?

It rightfully shames tribal thought that attempts to masquerade as "scientific." There is value in shaming uncritical thinking.

There is a big difference between scientists doing research, and possibly finding results that go against global warming, and deniers that are only using logical fallacies to support bogus claims. Scientists have no problems with serious research, whatever the conclusion. It is the second group of people that are making a big disservice to humanity.

Big leap to go from "global warming deniers" to "holocaust deniers". Talk about logical fallacies.

First off, I want to clear something up for you. Science is, in fact, all about the "revealed truth". It serves to reveal the actual truth about the universe around us, from the tiniest particle whose truths we are still struggling to discover, to the machinations of huge, massive bodies as they hurtle through the mostly empty space around them, interacting with other massive bodies from a gargantuan distance using forces we can now predict with relatively simple mathematics.

The "revealed truth" of our body of knowledge is just that: the truth of how things work, which is true whether or not we coax it into revealing itself to us through investigation and experimentation, but becomes revealed to us after the considerable effort of the scientists whose works you seem ready to dismiss because a handful of scientists don't agree with them. Is it also advisable to skip brushing your teeth because a commercial once said only "four out of five dentists agree: brush your teeth after every meal"?

These scientists you speak of are not persecuted geniuses who are just misunderstood, they're actually bad at science, and their arguments have, time and time again, been proven incorrect by actual science, their methods have been proven flawed by actual scientific method, and their epithets hurled at all the "establishment scientists" serve only to weaken their position because it comes from a position of emotion rather than science.

The comment to which you replied was clearly written by an impassioned observer who cares how science is applied, and yet you seem to confuse his position with that of actual climatologists. His comment is about the masses who do not understand how science reveals the truth of the world around us, and you literally stepped in to discredit his opinion statement by invoking the holocaust. It's shameful. And it's a shame, because your passion is better served by fighting for the pursuits of those seeking to reveal the truths hiding in plain sight, not arguing with concerned humans who just want the work to continue.

That's why we should really insist on talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming". I'm not a climate revisionist, but as a layman I do believe that climatology is about as good as economy when it comes to predict what will happen (well I'm a layman in economics too :-), and I do believe that instead of a global warning we might get an ice age. Or giant tornadoes all over the place 24/7.

On the other hand, I'm going to take that "belief" and weigh all those possibilities based on best current scientific likelihood. Ice age? Maybe. But I'm not putting any bets on an ice age, and I will bet, and ask my leaders to bet politically, on the sea level rise.

Temperature anomaly map: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&ss...

Btw. Increased temperature may be the underlying cause. Warmer temperature -> increased humidity -> more snow -> more ice.

Snow doesn't fall in warm places.

"Warm" is relative. -40 degree air can probably hold more water than -50 degree air. Warm air over water can evaporate more of the water, which can be carried to cold places.

Also, as a comment (iirc) on the Ars Technica take on thus story pointed out, the error bars on the study are so huge that it's unreasonable to conclude the ice is thickening without more accurate data.

Precipitation doesn't fall where it enters into solution with the atmosphere.

Obligatory disclaimer - I'm not arguing against anthropogenic climate change...

That having been said, I think that some of this seeming confusion on the part non scientists/casual consumers of mass media news sources makes a bit of sense. Science reporting is usually poor quality - it goes for the sensational headlines and it often doesn't do a good job of differentiating fact from theory from prediction so when new evidence/data gets brought in to the mix, it becomes all too easy for the casual news consumer to be confused and feel like "the story is always changing"...

And in some ways it is. That's what science does. It always builds on (or rejects) older ideas as better evidence becomes available.

In the case of climate change, the narrative was "global warming" which, to a casual news consumer, could sound like warming will take place across the globe. Incorrect, yes, but the confusion is partially understandable, imho.

It doesn't help that climate change activists seem to rely so heavily on science as a way to win arguments on policy. Science just tells us what is happening and gives a way of predicting the future. It is not some silver bullet for deciding policy or persuading people to change their habits. We need people to be far more literate about the environment in general and understand why it is in their self interest to protect it.

But there's the rub... by and large, it's not in my personal interest to stop global warming. Short-run gains matter more to a lot of people AND many people who could change won't see the return on their investment (or their bad behavior) in their lifetime.

(I should say, I'm not endorsing that thinking either... just noting that there's a challenge here, especially when one tries to frame climate change in terms of "self-interest")

That is why I said "environmental literacy" rather than just climate change. Take fossil fuel as an example. Burning oil and coal creates emissions that are toxic or carcinogenic to humans. Thousands of people die every year or endure suffering as a result. As if that wasn't enough gas is quite expensive for many. We should all want clean cars and power stations because they could actually be better.

But I agree that dry self interest is not enough, it needs to be backed up by some emotion. People need to feel ashamed of dirty technology and link it to the damage it causes. That is surely much easier when you focus on things less existential than climate change. Everyone knows someone who died of cancer, and fundraising for treatment is an ever present part of life. Completely destroying dirty fuel sources should just be an extension of that.

This might be the one area where "think of the [grand]children" is a reasonable argument.

It also would seem to be an argument for governmental intervention. Industry is unlikely to do it for the same reasons individuals are unlikely to consistently make good environmental choices... If ever there were a case, this may be it, assuming all of the predicted outcomes are actually going to come to pass, otherwise.

When the global average goes up, the extremes get more extreme.

And some people refuse to give in when their theory was just disproven. Really depressing.

What theory? That every place on earth gets warmer? Yes if you've held that theory you have been disproven.

If you wish to learn about climate change, I'd recommend looking at the history of it. One key thing to look at is radiation balance.

The whole field of science was lot less hyped and corrupted before the 90's. And I haven't heard of any new findings that would dramatically change that picture.

Which people? What theory was "just disproven"?

Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin America?

The "narrative" hasn't changed. The terminology of "climate change" was actively pushed by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, however, so if that's what you are referring to, there is your answer.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

BTW, we have been focusing on China; that's why the US brokered an emissions deal with China recently, which you would already know if you were seriously interested in the issue, as opposed to just being a troll.

You sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for climate change at all.

What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf

>Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m

I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science.

Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....

Since when were there all these conspiracy nuts on HN?

Don't call people nuts, even when they're very wrong about things. All you accomplish by doing that is making people wonder whether this is a religious debate that they shouldn't care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com