Hacker News Reader

Comment by cagenut | Hacker News Reader

this is textbook middlebrow contrarianism.

using some quote from some recognizable name to dismiss the incredible work of dozens of top of their field professionals doing their life's work.

its a perfect example of the way hacker news "types" do climate change denial. via endless "well-actuallys" until you're lost and stuck in a level of analysis-paralysis that borders on an anxiety disorder.

the problem with solving climate change is not a technology problem any more, its a decision making and coordination problem. we have a third of people in denial, a third of people who want to fix stuff, and this unbelievably infuriating third of people in the middle who can't stop equivocating and triangulating.

the thing preventing a simple majority from moving on with solutions is not the outright-deniers, its the people in the middle using the deniers as an excuse to not get on board with the solvers.

View on HN

This reads as remarkably dismissive of a well thought out comment about the difficulty of dialing in metrics and manifesting social pressures. Your comment in no way addressed these topics, and instead moved the line, beyond which lie "outright-deniers" (i.e. deluded people), further up to include anyone who expresses skepticism, or apparently who doesn't accept the coordinated work of thousands of scientists whole-sale and without question.

The result being, you equate someone expressing questions about the any parts of this process with deluded people. This doesn't seem conducive to healthy discussion.

No, the numbers don't matter anymore. Whether there will be 1.5°C warming or 4.5°C is simply no longer relevant. The steps needed to avoid either scenario are identical.

"patient" earth is sick. Will you cure him or not? That's the only important question.

No, it's a pretty fair assessment of the more sophisticated arguments climate change deniers are forced into after extreme weather events we've been getting illustrate the steady increase of average temperature.

For that matter, I don't think you are making a honest argument here, as you paint experts coming together to check each others work as something bad. People don't generally object to the linux kernel simply because it is "the coordinated work of thousands".

Nor is it normal to pretend that there isn't dissent within the linux project, as you try with climate change by saying "anyone who expresses skepticism[sic]" isn't welcome. And you do this in a comment thread of an article that is explicitly about dissent (about details) within the climate community.

I don't think the OP was suggesting we do nothing, but rather we should ground our fundamentals in the scientific method. We do not have another planet Earth to test climate change on. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but we should also understand our limits in predicting a system like our planet Earth.

OP is arguing that the models are likely to overestimate warming/damage. The logical conclusion from there is that the damage isnt as bad as predicted and therefore less action needs to be taken.

That would only matter if you were taking any action at all. When you're doing nothing you simply don't care.

And this is truly textbook HN behavior when it comes to climate change. You see it over and over.

Wow, yeah: the argument is pretty weird on a second reading.

There seems to be an effort to use the the historical example of Milikan, where a respected authority got a slightly low value, and all subsequent measurements all ended up above it, because that's where the truth was. Then it is claimed that likewise for climate change models above the average are preferred.

But this actually doesn't make any sense! First, because in the Milikan example the problem was subsequent experiments were biased conservative, meaning the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.

So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?

Pointing out that climate models are predictions is not the problem. The models are in fact predictions and they accumulate errors the further out they project. That's just the reality. The problem is pretending otherwise. That muddies the waters and literally fuels and strengthens climate change deniers as it gives them a leg to stand on. Remove that leg. We need to make it harder to dismiss, which can be better accomplished by being clear and factual.

Here is the problem, here is the hard science, here is how we can fix it.

Flat earthers and the like don't get nearly as far in part because they have no such counterpoint to leverage. They remain on the fringes, not taken seriously. Climate change deniers could be relegated to the same fate if we'd be clear about predictions vs science, and ease up on the doomsaying. Doomsayers tend to be ignored for good reason. The world is always said to be ending, yet it never does. Instead it's become drastically better, historically. Global warming is a problem to be solved. Stick to the science.

It's become drastically better to the expense of the planet!

Climate change deniers fuel themselves, and mostly on the wish to avoid any sacrifice on their own part.

The post you are defending is doing more than simply pointing out that the models are models. It is also claiming, without any proof or even argument in support, that experts all over the world are only publishing high predictions.

You're just assuming their inner thoughts. Furthermore most who believe in climate change aren't exactly sacrificing, either. Still flying in airplanes (even private jets), using air conditioning, eating meat, using or pushing fast fashion, etc.

As for an argument, well, experts have been on the wrong side about things like climate predictions, stock predictions, economy, nutrition and so on many times. Even to terrible effect. We replaced fat with trans-fats and sugar, for example. So it's at least fair to be skeptical.

Personally, I'm on the side of science and climate change is a problem we need to solve. And I think we will because we tend to be good about solving slow moving disasters. Besides, optimism and hope about the future is a better strategy than seeding people with fear, doubt and anxiety.

Maybe address the points instead of dismissing them with insult? That might work better at getting the middle to get on board.

The IPCCH has adressed every point you could imagine and then some.

See ipcch.ch

People who are arguing in bad faith like this need to be called out. There is no scientific debate on this matter. If you think CO2 does not affect climate significantly, then you are anti-science and should probably find a different website. Should we not criticize anti-vaxxers as well?

This comment is inappropriate and should be removed. It violates the #1 fundamental rule of this forum - to argue the argument, not the arguer.

The post is in fact about the argument, rightfully pointing out it is essentially high class spam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com