Comment by averros | Hacker News Reader

Comment by averros | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That is because climate alarmism has been around for quite a while and anybody who has memory longer than a goldfish's can easily recollect the promised catastrophes which just didn't happen. Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines and aggressive vaccination regiments are pushed onto public not for the benefit of people but rather for the benefit of pharmas and because of evident willful misrepresentation of potential for dangerous side effects - not to mention that the very notion of forced medication strikes many people as utterly totalitarian.

These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) and ever-growing number of must-do vaccines as reason for more taxation and more corporate welfare. A normal human reaction to being forced to submit is to resist. Even if force is supposed to be for the victim's own good.

> These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?)

What complete and utter bullshit. Yes, not all of the predictions behind climate change have come true; science evolves and new predictions or estimations are made as advancements in technology grow. Yet we've seen many of the predictions come true and many far worse things start to pop up, including the mass decline of insects worldwide and the rapidly rising sea level.

"we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide"

Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population.

Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3]

I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'...

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...

[3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/

You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial.

So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.

Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint?

You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.

So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this.

If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.

You seem very angry about this.

Here's what we know:

The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1]

The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2]

Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing.

"Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends."

"After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month."

"correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997."

"This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)."

"The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data."

Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it?

[1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/...

[2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16

I have no intention of debating with someone who has already misrepresented the debate once, especially someone that refuses to link or share a credible resource. As far as I have searched, every single link 'debunking' this study is coming from sites that deliberately peddle fake information such as Breitbart.

I have debated and dealt with far too many climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing.

I demonstrated that the paper shows a long term trend based on the data from a weather station.

I also showed you that the operators of the weather station explicitly say that the data should not be used to interpret long term trends.

All you have done is launch ad hominem attacks, you have not addressed the issue itself in any of your posts.

"climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing. "

This is where you got me badly wrong. I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation.

I think there's a wider discussion to have here about whether disinformation is OK if it's done with noble intentions, and only those spreading disinformation with malicious intent should be censored. Or should we find all disinformation campaigns equally repugnant?

That is a very good question. Many seem to think the Russia investigation is ok even if there is nothing to be found because the intentions are to take down trump. I've had many debates with friends where I pinned them down and they finally admitted there is no direct evidence of collusion with Russia, and they admit that it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter. I'm a progressive and despise Trump, but these dishonest tactics only do harm to the cause.

Same goes for the anti-anti-vaxxer campaign. It's obvious to most educated people that vaccines are a good thing, but to the uneducated, they see through all the propaganda for vaccines and it backfires because they end up trusting the establishment even less. Seeing everything as a team sport ends up with each side using any tactic, no matter how dishonest, to win the game.

> I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation.

You're pointing out an 'instance of disinformation' by using a site known for disinformation and spreading disinformation. Don't lie now, we both know exactly what you were trying to pull.

Do you have any credible source for 3?

GWPF is a firmly denialist think tank set up by Nigel Lawson, one of the most strident deniers who has often and easily been caught lying on many readily checked points. GWPF has been repeatedly criticised for its misinformation, its opaque funding and lied about sources, and breached Charity Commission rules on impartiality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundati...

Hang on just a bloody minute.

The recent study "heavily pushed by the likes of the Guardian" (sic) refers to an entirely different meta study[1] of 73 global reports. No mention of or link to the older study you cite.

The meta study concludes intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors. So the failure or otherwise of the temperature record in a single location is mostly irrelevant to their findings. If it is even included in the analysis at all.

What a delightful illustration for a thread on disinformation and fake news.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071...

If you think I'm denying climate change, you've misunderstood my point.

My point is that disinformation campaigns are not solely an endeavour of nefarious actors with an agenda. They are also undertaken by those with noble intentions. Climate alarmists are a good example of that.

Should we give disinformation campaigns a free pass if they're done with good intentions?

"No mention of or link to the older study you cite."

It's right there in the 4th paragraph.

Which is link to a previous article, so adds a level of indirection. If you'd cited that in the first place, fine.

Even if the complaint letter turns out to be upheld (unlikely given the history of the authors, but you never know), it doesn't affect, or even question, the conclusion of the meta study in the Guardian piece you did link to. The one that concludes climate is only a significant secondary factor.

Until said letter is upheld as finding a valid flaw in the study, it's worthless. That's how science progresses. Individual studies are found accurate or wanting, further research confirms, disputes or adds precision.

A few steps from the hyperbole of "flawed to the point of uselessness", as though it is already proven.

> Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines

Would you class the measles vaccine as new? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-...

In both your points regarding climate change and vaccinations, you show yourself as an apologist for anti-science causes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com