lzw

You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic.

Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.

Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it.

They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.

You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks?

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917

So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?

In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them.

I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you.

You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who: 1. Is not familiar with the science. 2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments. 3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments. 4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists" 5. Engages in personal attack. 6. Engages in dishonest statements. 7. Rejects the scientific method.

You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.

First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the subject, and attacking me, including engaging in name calling, and dishonesty, trying to force me to defend a position that I have never taken.

And even so, you are easily defeated because you have provided no evidence supporting your position. You're taking some date, and asserting that it says something without considering the nature of that data and what it is actually measuring.

The thing that has tripped you up is that you think you're referring to science when you're actually referring to propaganda. People have massaged the numbers to support a hypothesis, and you link to it, thinking it is factual. It isn't. (otherwise there is no way the rural and urban areas would show the same warming, unless there was no such thing as a heat island effect, a position I presume you are not taking.)

Thus you have jumped the gun, insulted me, and made erronous arguments while ignoring, multiple times, it being pointed out that you're doing so, because you won't pay close enough attention to notice that you're attacking a person who didn't make the claim you erronously assumed.

The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons.

I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to many arguments against AGW, or maybe not many good ones. But since you have an open mind, I'd suggest you look into the absorbtion of IR By CO2, the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of tropophere warming (where it should show up) and the historical correlation of CO2 and temperasture-- CO2 has been a lagging indicator and has, in the past, been much higher than it is now from natural events without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. These are basic facts that don't take much analysis and greatly undermine the AGW theory. Also, the planet is getting colder in recent years (past decade) while CO2 has been rising.

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses.

If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology.

Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

Must be nice to not have to do any thinking at all- you just link to some propagandist and have your opponents (anyone foolish enough anyway) debate them.

I fell for that once, and the person's response? "Well, I never said that!"

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the arguments that I have put forth, ignore the science and facts I have referenced, and continue to demand that I answer questions that presuppose facts you have not presented.

Maybe you're just incapable of debate. Or you don't care- because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

The ball is in your court. You can respond, or you can continue to equivocate. I really don't care.

Aw, gee, a snotty insult with no actual substantive response. Stay classy, hacker news!

Sure, the snotty insult gets upvoted and the response pointing out that it is not useful or adding to the conversation gets downvoted. Votes are driven by ideology, not objectivity, eh?

I never used the word moron. It takes a lot of gall to use the insult you used against someone else and attempt to tar me with it.

Your lack of class is why having a reasonable discussion on this site is impossible.

You are expressing your bigotry towards me. When I disagree, I actually disagree, and it is this disagreement that you are responding to. You can't downvote a response you disagree to (or at least hacker news doesn't let me) and I don't downvote anyway.

If I disagree, I disagree by writing a counter argument. You may not like it, it may not be persuasive, but I write it.

As to whether this guy is a "scientist" or not, I don't think it is relevant as your movement commonly mischaracterizes people according to their ideological purity.

EDIT: Now I understand why you accused me of blindly downvoting. Projection.

I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted".

First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration.

As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up.

This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.)

As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)

If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to.

You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence-- yet you never even saw the evidence you claim you presented.

This is how your position is fundamentally anti-science. You don't understand the science, you haven't seen any evidence. But a link to a propagandist, proves, in your mind, that you're on the side of "Science".

By the way, the fact is, if you actually studied that data, it doesn't actually agree. Only be selectively choosing samples can you get tree ring data, ice core data, etc to agree, and only by distorting with arbitrary factors (also known as fraud) can you get weather station data and satellite data to agree.

In fact, the claim that all this data agrees with each other is itself a bit of scientific nonsense because it presumes this data were actually measuring the same thing in the same method and were actually independant.

Zeolots spamming random paper citations that they've never read to people whose arguments they've never read is not supporting science. It is actually, attempting to stifle science by stifling critical thinking in favor of rote repetition of The Global Warming Faith.

Since you used the word "Denialists" I already know you deny the scientific method and actually know nothing about the science of this issue. You're just repeating the Global Warming Faith (one of whose tenants is that anything that disagrees with the faith is not science) and attempting to shout down someone accurately pointing out the spam your ideology is resulting in.

You are being anti-science because you don't know or understand the science, you're just giving them citations that are completely irrelevant to the question at hand. This has been my experience with global warming advocates- they believe what they believe and they have links to papers that they have never read to justify their faith.

Linking to a blog written by scientifically ignorant proponetns of a religion who make inaccurate in dishonest links to random scientific papers is not making an argument.

Just like you are unwilling or unable to engage in debate here.

Don't let the term "fossil fuel" confuse you. In the early days of drilling they found fossils in the oil that came up, and this led to the common hypothesis. But people don't really know the mechanism by which oil is created (possibly this is true for coal as well.) The russians have an alternative hypothesis and have some experimental results where wells that were previously depleted were refilled. So called "Fossil fuels" may be a byproduct of processes in the earths crust and may not be finite (though we could still exceed the rate at which they are produced).

The commonly accepted theory is really a hypothesis with not that much science supporting it. The alternative theory may not have any more science supporting it, either. But notice how the name and the fact that the commonly accepted theory has been commonly accepted so long that it becomes "Fact" biases people's perception of the situation.

I hear people talking about CO2 as if your "carbon footprint" is a relavent issue all the time-- it has become commonly accepted even though, in that case, the hypothesis has been disproven. (CO2's absorbtion of IR is low, and its proportion is low, and thus water vapor is the driver of greenhouse effect. Further, in the past, CO2 has been vastly higher without a runaway greenhouse effect.)

It is a myth. It is an ideology that rejects science. And the proof that hacker news is full of ignorant college students who choose ideology over science (and capitalism, for that matter) is the fact that any failure to blindly advocate the socialist position is automatically downvoted.

EDIT: I take the downvotes this post is getting as proof that my hypothesis is correct. If my hypothesis were wrong, I would get actual responses or counter arguments attempting to illuminate me. Downvotes are cowardly.

Actually all of them are because it is just linking to random papers without any understanding of context-- it can't have understanding because it is a bot.

This is actually a very accurate simulation of attempting to debate with a global warming zealot.

The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want.

You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please!

See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it correctly, it is impossible to disprove, even though the planet is getting colder, because it is based on fantasy models-- you can't disprove a model because it is just a model. And these models having never worked with previous data sets is well known but advocates don't care.)

You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument".

This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate.

The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken.

But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.

This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint and called them a name.

Global warming is an ideology that rejects science and includes the belief that all opponents reject science and therefore are not worth arguing with. This is why you will not find arguments from global warming advocates, you will just find derisive claims and namecalling.... which you provided an example of.

Note: I am not getting into the debate with you, I am merely pointing out why your namecalling produced, as you put it "zero actual debate".

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because they give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.

I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all. These people are just stepping stones or excuses to increase their power -- much the way wars and fear of terrorism are useful to the right.

I've learned enough economics and attempted to explain to people on the left in very straightforward economic terms how a given policy will actually hurt poor people, and never once have I managed to persuade a leftist to oppose that policy. They don't care, or they just decide that because I'm speaking economic science I must be a republican and therefore evil.

I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought.

You realize that you're defending a bot which provides random citations base on key phrases found in twitter posts on the claim that "most people's ... nonsense isn't ...skepticism, It's noise"?

Here is someone providing no thought and adding nothing to the discussion, by definition, he is providing noise.

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean what they say is nonsense.

The primary attribute of the global warming ideology is to reject, out of hand, the possibility that global warming is not human caused. It is not a scientific movement, it is an ideology that rejects science as its first basis. Not once have I seen a global warming proponent who was willing to debate it on a scientific basis, nor have I ever seen one who was willing to listen to scientific arguments. The global warming movement is an anti-science movement, and here he is providing random citations as if they were relevant to discussions he's not even seeing...

this is the most profound example of the anti-science nature of the global warming movement combined with the deaf ear that it advocates towards people who disagree, or who "question the science" (which is known, in scientific circles as providing an alternative hyptohesis, and is intrinsic to the process of science.)

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is settled science" (with no citations, naturally, not that any legitimat scientist would make such a claim anyway.)

The earth is getting colder. The termperature changes we've seen over short, medium and long periods of time are consistent with the ice age pattern or solar heating. CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is today without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 does not absorb sufficient IR to support the global warming hypothesis, etc.

Global warming is a movement of people who do not care about these facts and just want to repeat, over and over, that "all scientists agree" (as if science was concensus based). I have yet to meet a global warming proponent who will actually argue on the science (or even is actually familiar with it) they all just repeat the same claims, or link to blogs of people who also don't understand the science, or link to papers who don't say what they want to claim they say.

Global Warming is a movement that rejects science, and has the ideological defense mechanism of smugly claiming to have a monopoly on science and that anyone who is a skeptic is spewing "anti-science nonsense."

Proof of the preceding claim is presented in the headline of the article in question (and virtually every other similar article out there.)

Ok, now go vote me down-- for science.

I love how you just made up a term and then claimed that using the word wrong is justified because you made up a different term for the correct definiton.

Of course, you've never opened an economic texbook in your life.

I also love how you claim that my references to history are ideological assertions, then you make a broad and profoundly ignorant ideological assertion as a counter argument, except that, of course, you don't make an actual argument, you just say "many people believe".

Many people believe there is a good, that's not proof that its true.

You are a fucking ignorant socialist, and it is consequently no wonder that you are so dishonest as well.

It is fucktards like you that make hacker news (and any "social" news site) not worth participating on,..... because there are just too many ignorant, low intelligence people downvoting those who bothered to learn something and who bother to think.

Just in case there's any question of our relative positions here.

I never said the only motivation people have is personal greed.

Taxation is literally a mugging. And you are in error to assume that governments cannot exist without mugging. Businesses provide services and charge for them. A government could do this as well.

don't speak for libertarians if you aren't one. If you are one, you've failed to apply the zero aggression principle.

You also seem to fail to distinguish between using violence defensively against an agressor, which is moral, and using violence offensively to steal from someone (eg: taxation) which is immoral.

Yeah, this was a page about a product. A product that leftists have an opinion about, but are generally pretty ignorant about.

If you ask them to write code on a whiteboard you are testing their ability to work while nervous without their common tools handy... when left with someone staring at them silently and expectantly.

I have had great success determining the quality of programmers just by talking to them. I've also found that the job (back when I worked for others) that I got where they asked me to write programs for them turned out to be the most crappy, poorly run businesses. But the ones that just talked to me, and determined I was a good programmer from that, turned out to be the best.

The very best told me by the end of the interview that they were going to make an offer. (I understand that offers take time to prepare, run by legal or whatever.)

The entire industries recruiting system is completely broken and inefficient.

Maybe, but they were smart enough to tell me to forget that they had told me, so I think I am an original snowflake and completely unique.

This brain programming is good!