Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

> a phenomenon that scientists have taken to calling “underground climate change.”

That is really, really f'ing annoying, and it's the scientific equivalent of click bait. The phenomenon described in this article seems largely unrelated to greenhouse gas-induced climate change, and instead appears to be more directly related to just more underground heat sources being constructed.

Confusing these two different phenomena does nobody any good, and my suspicion is that scientists would use the term "underground climate change" because "Hey, above ground climate change gets a lot of press, if I call this 'underground climate change' maybe I can get some better press too."

View on HN

I think the only person confused about the use of the phrase "climate change" is you. The title is "Heat Down Below Is Making the Ground Shift Under Chicago" So how is that clickbait?

"Climate change" describes the consequence, not the mechanism. So it also makes sense in this context and is consistent with the other use.

If the people working in this field find it intuitively similar enough to justify using the term, I don't have any particular reason to question their motives about it. Using a similar term does not necessarily mean "confusing two different phenomena".

Bike wheels and airplane wheels work very differently, for different purposes, but are similar enough in enough ways to justify using the same term. It's quite possible to differentiate when that's necessary, and also it usually isn't.

Perhaps technically, but words acquire meaning and nuance separate from their technical definitions.

I have a very strong difficulty believing that scientists who call this "underground climate change" aren't doing this with the deliberate intent to latch on to all the press/importance of atmospheric climate change.

> Bike wheels and airplane wheels work very differently, for different purposes, but are similar enough in enough ways to justify using the same term. It's quite possible to differentiate when that's necessary, and also it usually isn't.

Do you honestly believe that analogy has anything to do with the point I'm making here?

I'm just not that skeptical of their motives, I guess. Nor am I particularly alarmed if that is an aspect of why they've chosen it.

The idea that science is a completely neutral endeavor completely separate from the world it takes place in is pure fantasy. A modest amount of marketing for the research is part of doing the research, and always has been.

I force myself to be careful to use the word cynicism instead of skepticism - the former word describes an a malevolent intention while the latter does not. I do this as an exercise as it’s been too easy for me (I’ve a skeptical nature - an extreme form of curiosity I think) to slip from skepticism to cynicism. Claims can be factually incorrect but for many reasons - and once you start building theories of motivation, it’s too easy to be sidetracked by emotion and prejudice. Skepticism is healthy but requires sticking to trying to determine truths and just ignoring possible motivations. Excuse the barely relevant ramble but I found this approach would have saved me aggravation earlier in my life.

And just where is the phrase “climate change” specifically limited to only “greenhouse-gas-induced”?

The entire climate of the planet is being affected by human development, and amalgamating its effects under a single term has more value than segregating the disparate areas, just to satisfy the semantically nitpicky.

That is really, really f'ing annoying,

Local soil dynamics are changing, due to human activity. So "(localized) climate change" is a perfectly reasonable description of what's happening, to a first order approximation.

The rest is just fluff and bother. I can see someone having a "meh" reaction to this choice of language. But to be "really, really fucking annoyed" by it?

I submit there are other, much bigger and genuinely sinister things at loose in the world you might want to direct your precious capacities to be "really, really fucking annoyed" at.

My suspicion is that scientists would use the term "underground climate change" [to get more press]"

More likely they were just trying to put the matter in a terms the lay person would understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com