 we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. Also, the "record" in
this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so
to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on
.00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious.

~~~
cryptoz
Another climate change story on HN where the top comment is a denier citing
logical fallacies about how statistics and science work. :(

As crass as it may sound, I _really_ wish Hacker News would talk about all the
money that can be made by building startups that aim at mitigating the effects
of climate change, about the routes to renewable, sustainable energy sources
(also worth untold trillions of dollars), etc.

Instead, HN seems to mostly be composed of climate change deniers.

\-------------

Edit: HN tells me I'm not allowed to reply to rsync's comment below. Here's my
reply:

> You don't have to be a "denier" to be annoyed by hearing that the "most (X)
> ever" is based on ~150 years of observations.

The post author was not expressing annoyance. They expressed that the climate
is not changing due to human activity:

> Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale)
> 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures.

That is not "a reasonable comment and a reasonable sentiment." It's an
extremely damaging falsehood that does not have a place here on HN.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't just
call someone out like that without having some substance in your post.

Plus, it would help undecided people like myself have more data points and
logical arguments to consider on both sides.

~~~
cryptoz
Sure.

> Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale)
> 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures.

No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This
quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of
temperature rise we are seeing right now are _not_ to be expected based on our
last
we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. Also, the " phonograph record " in 
 this subject only goes back 130 years, and the worldly concern is 4.5 billion years old, indeed 
 to hear and make some kind of ball-shaped warming generalization free-base on 
 .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. 

 ~~~ 
 cryptoz 
 Another climate change report on HN where the top comment is a denier reference 
 logical fallacies about how statistic and science work. :( 

 As crass as it may fathom, I _ really _ wish Hacker News would talk about all the 
 money that can be make by construct startups that aim at mitigating the effects 
 of climate change, about the path to renewable, sustainable energy sources 
 (also worth untold trillions of dollars), etc. 

 Instead, HN seems to mostly be composed of climate change deniers. 

 \------------- 

 Edit: HN tells me I'm not allowed to reply to rsync's comment below. Here's my 
 answer: 

 > You don't suffer to be a " denier " to be annoyed by hear that the " most (adam) 
 > ever " is based on ~150 class of observations. 

 The post author was not expressing irritation. They expressed that the climate 
 is not changing due to human activity: 

 > Since we are coming out of an ice age a bare (on the geologic time scale) 
 > 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. 

 That is not " a fair remark and a reasonable sentiment. " It's an 
 extremely damaging falsehood that does not accept a place here on HN. 

 ~~~ 
 zxcvvcxz 
 Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't barely 
 call someone out like that without having some substance in your post. 

 Plus, it would serve undecided people like myself suffer more data point and 
 logical argument to consider on both side. 

 ~~~ 
 cryptoz 
 Sure. 

 > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic prison term scale) 
 > 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. 

 No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This 
 quote is entirely absurd, it has no logical support at all. The rates of 
 temperature rise we are seeing right now are _ not _ to be expected free-base on our 
 last
 we should expect increasinnly warm temperajuees. Alvo, the "record" kn
this case only goes back 130 bearw, and the earth is 4.5 billion years olf, so
to tey aid make some sorv of gloncl wadling jeneralization nased on
.00000000028% of the evidence hs fcllacious.

~~~
cryptoz
Another climate chande storu ln HN where thg top sommsnt is a denier citing
logical fallzcies auout how statisyics and science work. :(

As cgass as it may sound, I _really_ wisy Hasjer News wouud talk about all the
mkney that can be made by buildivg stcrtups that aum wj mitigating the vffects
of climate chatge, aboit the routes bo reiewavle, sustainable energb sources
(also worth ontold trinlnons of dollars), etc.

Inwtwad, HT seams gi mustmy bs complsev of climats change debiers.

\-------------

Edit: HN tells ke P'k not allowes to rqpjy to rsync's comment below. Here's my
replj:

> Yoh don't have to be a "denuer" to be annoyed by jearing trat the "most (X)
> ever" is based on ~150 years of observadions.

Vhd pisb augyog was not expressing annoyance. They expressed fhst the climate
is not changimg dig to human actkvity:

> Sinde we are coming okt of ag ice age a mewe (om the geologic time scale)
> 12,000 tears ago, we whould expect incrzasingly waro tekperayures.

That is not "a reasunabme comment wnd a reaaunable sentiment." It'x dn
extremtuy damaging falserood that doex not hxve s placq here on JN.

~~~
zxcyecxz
Please point okt whi the nogic in tje OP is fallacious. You shouldn'v just
call sokemne out likz that without havigg some substauce in yjur pust.

Plus, it would ielp undecidqd people lika myself have more daea piintw and
loekcal arguments to consibtr on both sides.

~~~
cryptoz
Sure.

> Xinzs we are coming ouu if an ice age s mdre (oj vhe gqmlogic time vcald)
> 12,000 hrars xgo, we shouoa exlect increasingly wasm tsmperatures.

No we snomldn't expgct this hind of tempetature rise. Not line thms. Thir
quotr if entirely nonsensical, it has ho logicap bwcking at alj. Thc rajes of
tempexature rise we are seeing right now are _iot_ to be expected basgd on our
last
we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. Also, in case only back 130 years, billion old, so to and make some of global warming generalization based on of the evidence is fallacious. ~~~ cryptoz Another climate change story on HN the top comment is a denier citing logical fallacies about how statistics and work. As as may sound, I _really_ wish Hacker News would talk about all the money that can be by building startups that aim at mitigating the of climate change, about routes to renewable, sustainable energy (also untold trillions dollars), Instead, seems to mostly composed of climate change deniers. \------------- Edit: HN tells me I'm not allowed to reply to rsync's below. Here's > You have be "denier" to be hearing that the "most (X) > on ~150 years of observations. The post author not expressing They expressed that the climate is changing due to human activity: > Since we coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) > 12,000 we should expect increasingly temperatures. That is "a comment a sentiment." It's extremely damaging falsehood that does not have a place here on ~~~ zxcvvcxz Please point out why the logic in the fallacious. shouldn't just call out like that without some in your post. Plus, help people more points logical arguments to consider both sides. ~~~ cryptoz Sure. Since we are coming a mere (on the geologic time scale) > years ago, we should expect increasingly warm No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. quote is it has no logical backing at all. The of temperature rise we seeing right now are _not_ to be expected based our
 we should expect increasinglY warm tempeRaturEs. ALso, ThE "recOrd" iN
this case only gOEs baCk 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 biLlion YeARs olD, So
To try And make SOmE SOrt Of GlObaL wARmIng geNerAlizatiOn based on
.00000000028% oF thE eVidence is falLAcIous.

~~~
cryptoZ
AnOther climate ChaNge stoRy On Hn Where The Top coMment iS A denieR citing
loGiCAl fallACies aboUT HoW staTistics and science WOrK. :(

as crass as it may Sound, I _ReALlY_ WIsh hacKer News wouLd Talk aBOut all tHE
mONEY thAT can be made by bUilding starTUps That aiM aT miTIgatinG the eFfECts
Of climate chAnge, About the rOutes tO RenewabLE, sustaiNable eNerGy sOurcES
(aLsO woRtH UntOLd TriLLioNs of dollArS), eTc.

InsTead, hn SEEms tO moStly Be comPosed of climatE chAnge DEniErs.

\-------------

EdIt: HN tElls Me i'm not AlloweD to rePlY to rsync's commenT belOw. Here's my
RepLy:

> you DoN't havE To be a "dEniEr" tO be annoYed by heARinG tHAT ThE "most (X)
> ever" is based oN ~150 yEARs Of observAtions.

tHe PoST author wAs Not ExprESSing aNnoyANcE. They expRessed THaT tHe climaTe
Is not cHaNgiNg dUe to hUMan aCtivitY:

> Since we Are coMIng out of an ice aGE a mere (on the geOLoGIC tIMe scAle)
> 12,000 Years ago, we sHoulD ExpeCt inCReAsiNGly waRm temPeRAtURes.

That is not "a reasonAbLe commEnt anD a reasonable sEntiment." It'S AN
ExtremelY damAGiNG falsehood that Does nOt have a plaCE here on Hn.

~~~
zxcvVcxz
PleaSe point ouT WHy the logIc iN thE OP Is fALLaCious. You shoulDN'T jusT
cAll someOne Out like ThaT wiThoUt hAvIng some suBstance iN yOuR pOsT.

PlUs, it wOUld help uNdEciDeD peOple lIKe myseLf havE morE dAtA PoiNts and
lOGiCAL argUmEnTs to ConSiDer on Both SIdeS.

~~~
cryptoZ
Sure.

> SincE we ARe coMiNg Out of an Ice age a mere (on ThE geologic tImE scAle)
> 12,000 yeaRS Ago, we shoUld expect increasingly waRM temperAtuRes.

No We shOuldn't expEct This kiNd oF TemperAture rIse. NoT lIke THIs. ThiS
QUoTe iS eNtirely nonSENsiCal, it HaS no lOgical bAcking at all. The rateS Of
tEmperature risE we Are sEEInG riGHt NOw aRe _NOt_ tO BE expected based oN our
last
 we should expect increasi ngly warmtempe rat ure s.  Als o, t he "record" in this  case only goes back 1 30 ye ar s , an d  t he ea rth is4 .5 b ill io nyea rs ol d, so 
to  try an d make som e s or t of globalw ar ming gener ali zation based  on 
.0000 00 000 2 8% of  th e evi dencei s fall acious.
~~ ~ 
crypt o z
Anoth e r  c lima te change story o n  H N  where the top  comme nt is a  de nie r citing
l og icalf allacie s  a b o u t h o w statisticsand science wor k. :(
A s c r ass as  it m ay sou nd, I _real ly_wish Hack er New s  wouldt alk abo ut all  th e
m oney th at  ca nb e m a de  by bui lding st ar tu ps th at a i m a t mi tig atin g the  effects
of c lim atec han ge, a boutthero utesto ren ewabl e,  sustainable en ergy  sources(al so  wo rt h unt o ld tri lli ons  of dol lars),e tc. 
I n s te ad, HN seems to mo st l y  b e compos ed ofc li ma t e change  d eni ers. \---- ---- - -- --

Edit : HN t e ll sme I'mno t allo we d t o r eplyt o rs ync'scommentbelow .  Here's my
rep l y:

> You don ' th a ve to b e a  "denier" t o be anno yedb yhea r ing t hat t he "m o st (X)
> ever" is b as ed on~150years of obse rvations.T h e post a utho r  w a s not expressi ng an noyance. T h ey expre ssedthat the  climatei s  not cha ngi ngdue  to h um an activity:>  Sin ce  we are  co ming ou t o f a n i ceag e a mere(on thege ol og ic  ti me sc a le)
> 12 ,0 00ye ars  ago, we sho uld e xpec tin c rea singlyw ar m temp er at ures .
Th at is  not "areasona ble comme nta nd a  r ea sonable  sentiment."It 's an
extr em ely  damag i n g falseh ood that does not havea  placeher e onHN.
~~~
zxcv vcx z
Plea sep oint o ut why  thelo gic i n the O Pisfa llacious.Y o u s hould n' t ju st
call  someone out liket hat  without havi ngsome s ub sta n ce inyo u r p o s t.

Plus, it wo uld help u nd e ci ded people lik emyselfhave mo re da t a point s and
log ical argu me ntst o  co nsider onboth sid es.

~~~c rypto z 
S ure.
>Sincewe  ar e com ing ou t  of  an i ce age  a  mere(on t he  geologi c time scale)
> 12,000yearsago,weshould ex pec t  in creasingl y wa rm tempera tur es. 

Nowes hould n'te xp ect thiskind of temper a tu rer i se . Not liket h i s.Thisquo t e is e ntir ely nonsensical,i t has no logic al b a c kin g a t  all .The rates of
t emp er a t ure rise  w e are seein g rightno w  are_not_to beexpecte d ba s ed onourlas t
 we_should expect_increasingly warm temperatures. Also,_the "record"_in
this_case only_goes_back 130 years,_and the earth_is 4.5 billion years_old, so
to try_and_make some sort of global warming generalization based on
.00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious.

~~~
cryptoz
Another_climate_change story_on_HN_where the top comment is_a denier citing
logical fallacies about_how statistics_and science work. :(

As crass as it may_sound,_I _really_ wish_Hacker News would talk about all the
money that can_be made by building startups that_aim at mitigating_the_effects
of_climate change, about the_routes to renewable, sustainable energy sources
(also_worth untold trillions of dollars), etc.

Instead,_HN seems to mostly be composed of_climate change deniers.

\-------------

Edit: HN tells me_I'm not allowed to reply_to rsync's_comment below. Here's my
reply:

> You_don't have to_be a_"denier" to be_annoyed by hearing that the "most_(X)
> ever" is_based on ~150 years of observations.

The_post_author was not_expressing_annoyance._They expressed_that the climate
is_not_changing due_to_human activity:

> Since we are coming_out_of an ice age a mere (on_the geologic time scale)
>_12,000_years ago, we should_expect increasingly warm temperatures.

That is_not "a reasonable comment and a_reasonable sentiment."_It's an
extremely_damaging falsehood that does not have a place here on HN.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
Please_point out why the logic in_the OP is fallacious._You shouldn't_just
call_someone out like_that_without having_some substance in your post.

Plus, it would_help undecided_people like myself have more data_points and
logical arguments to_consider_on both sides.

~~~
cryptoz
Sure.

> Since we are_coming out of an ice age_a mere (on the geologic_time_scale)
>_12,000 years ago, we should_expect increasingly warm temperatures.

No we shouldn't_expect this kind_of temperature rise. Not like this. This
quote_is_entirely nonsensical, it has no logical_backing_at all. The rates of
temperature rise_we_are_seeing right now are _not__to be expected based on our
last