Hacker News Reader

Comment by sparkzilla | Hacker News Reader

I see you got downvoted too. So much for facts.

This is the sort of thing that makes me a "climate denier." If even basic science gets downvoted, how is the other side scientific?

Discussions about climate stories on HN have tended to get derailed by climate deniers injecting "facts" or little calculations/conjectures that seem to refute bodies of peer-reviewed science into the discussion.

And after a while this diversion of attention is irritating. Not a down voter, but I'd assume that's what's going on.

Now, about "the other side" being unscientific -- HN down vote behavior does not have much to do with the content of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So I don't agree with letting HN down voting behaviors drive your decision-making about climate science.

For climate science, a good place to start is the just-published 2017 (U.S.) National Climate Assessment, which helpfully summarizes the peer-reviewed science. See: https://science2017.globalchange.gov

It is sort of a sniff test. It is hard and time consuming for an individual to parse the validity of these studies. So people look for basic facts they know to be true, which seem to be contradicted by the global warming claims. One of these is that water displaces the same volume of water whether frozen or liquid. Thus it would appear melting sea ice would have no impact on sea levels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com