Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism. The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.
CO2 causes atmospheric warming. The underlying principles are simple and sound. We are emitting tons and tons of CO2 by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels.
The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do.
>But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses
That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows.
>We would naturally expect historical errors in temperature measurements to be evenly distributed.
No we wouldn't and you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your claims.
>If they are evenly distributed, we would expect there to be ten other such hypotheses, involving upward corrections in past measurements, which were not studied because of their low impact if confirmed.
I'm going to be direct and honest here: This is why I think you're just lying to push a point. This is not how the scientific method works. None of what you've postulated is correct. And for the record there are various groups (including some oil companies) pouring millions into scientific studies trying to prove global warming isn't happening. None of their supposed "evidence" has withstood peer review or scrutiny.
Evidence is what ultimately matters, a point you seem to be trying really hard to avoid addressing.
Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation.
>Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism.
Any skeptical post would qualify for this.
>The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.
The same tactics (attacking data sources) are used in any critical analysis of a given scientific field (see sociology).
>CO2 causes atmospheric warming.
Repeating the conclusion is not an argument.
>The underlying principles are simple and sound.
Right, but the underlying principle isn't being disputed. The underlying principles behind lots of research can be fine while the research itself is garbage (e.g. bad data collection methodology).
>The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do.
This is so idiotic I don't even know where to start. You're saying that there is no reason to question scientific findings if you think a whole method of research is fundamentally flawed?
"The only reason you have to argue against numerology is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do."
Sounds silly, doesn't it?
>That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows.
Cute, I take it you've never worked in academia? People completely throw away experiments that fail to support their hypothesis all of the time. Especially if the result would bring down a fire of threats to their career. (https://xkcd.com/1478/https://xkcd.com/882/)
Bias in the researchers is a very big problem in all scientific fields. When you're trained to be a hammer and all you work with are hammers, and you get your funding from the hammer use-case fund, you certainly aren't out looking for screwdriver use-cases.
Please keep the discussion to substantive counterpoints other than ad hominems, strawman arguments, and appeals to authority.
> Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation.
Your post is nonsense in context. The top post provided no concrete details, so what details could the GP use but to quote it directly?
It was a non-falsifiable theory devoid of evidence; by their logic, we can't listen to experts because they're experts. All research is subject to systemic and directed bias, discernible without actually looking at that research.
It's dumb and not remotely concrete. And it's certainly a time honored diversionary and denialist tactic.
> Bias in the researchers is a very big problem in all scientific fields. When you're trained to be a hammer and all you work with are hammers, and you get your funding from the hammer use-case fund, you certainly aren't out looking for screwdriver use-cases. Please keep the discussion to substantive counterpoints other than ad hominems.
I'd suggest maybe doing a little self reflection before posting? This entire thread is fundamentally an ad hominem argument, and this quote just doubles down.
Hacker news agrees with him, not you. Take your elitist ration and logic elsewhere, it's not welcome here. I've just about given up on this place - I think Thiel has been astroturfing for years and it's getting worse.
Did you read my post? It was pointing out that that the parent's post was lacking ration and logic and was resorting to ad homs, strawmen, and appeals to authority.
'CO2 causes atmospheric warming. The underlying principles are simple and sound. We are emitting tons and tons of CO2 by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels.'. Yes, we know all this and there isn't a single skeptical scientist from Richard Lindzen onwards (and let's include the non-scientist Myron Ebell) who takes issue with that statement. The core question is a quantitative not qualitative one.
By the way, who are the groups 'pouring millions' and where do they state that they are 'trying to prove global warming is not happening'? It's probably best to keep to salient facts because 'None of their supposed "evidence" has withstood peer review or scrutiny' is a cheap, easy aside to make if we don't know who they are or to which evidence you're referring.
CO2 causes atmospheric warming. The underlying principles are simple and sound. We are emitting tons and tons of CO2 by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels.
The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do.
>But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses
That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows.
>We would naturally expect historical errors in temperature measurements to be evenly distributed.
No we wouldn't and you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your claims.
>If they are evenly distributed, we would expect there to be ten other such hypotheses, involving upward corrections in past measurements, which were not studied because of their low impact if confirmed.
I'm going to be direct and honest here: This is why I think you're just lying to push a point. This is not how the scientific method works. None of what you've postulated is correct. And for the record there are various groups (including some oil companies) pouring millions into scientific studies trying to prove global warming isn't happening. None of their supposed "evidence" has withstood peer review or scrutiny.
Evidence is what ultimately matters, a point you seem to be trying really hard to avoid addressing.