If you want an example of how intellectual forums die, this thread is it.
Yes, journalists are in fact allowed to write about science topics and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. No, not everything that’s written about science has to have been published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Good science journalism is awesome and there should be much more of it.
It’s this honestly bizarre cynical and twisted worldview that’s wrong with HN, most certainly not that someone posted this article.
How dare people question media?
How dare people think for themselves instead of accepting what media tells them?
How dare they?
You have vilified everything that goes wrong with a democratic society.
Your mentality is the problem.
No one ever claimed you have to accept what the article says.
You're free to question media. Welcome, in fact. I would love nothing more. But you didn't do it, and to act as though you did when someone calls you out is dishonest.
Care to back that up with some data?
Ok, let’s try to apply some intellectual thinking to the article.
Firstly, The Rolling Stone is not a scientific journal, but rather a magazine catering to the general public.
Secondly, I read the article, not as a scientific paper on climate change, but rather an article about a particular climate change scientist, Jason Box.
The article presents Box's opinions on climate change and his latest prediction that black snow could have a big impact on the rate of ice melt.
How is that any different, to say, an article asking Bjarne Stroustrup's his opinions of the C++11 standard?
It's an opinion piece, from someone whose opinion should be worth reading, if only because they have expertise in that field.
I hope you mean that as directed to both sides of the argument, because it's certainly true.
Despite the alarmist title, I found this a good video on the topic of climate change:
"The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change's Increasingly Wild Weather"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-RDE7z2T0k
I'd recommend the second portion of the video, as it’s a good old fashion, boring, highly scientific and un-emotive description of one particular view of how higher arctic temperatures can affect the climate.
I also found the second portion worked well as a tutorial on the basics of how the world’s climate actually works.
You're clearly concerned with citations, so I'll ask for one: where did anyone here say, even implicitly, that they valued a Rolling Stone article in place of actual scientific research?
The article gives plenty of caveats.
Is there anything factually wrong in the article? Or is it that you disagree with his hypothesis? Or is it simply the lack of cites?
Climate change, like much cutting-edge scientific research, rarely gets informed or rational treatment on programmer forums. Just look back through the history of climate change articles on Slashdot, for instance. They are chock full of objections or concerns that would be answered with an hour or two on Wikipedia or the IPCC website.
The reason is that programmers and engineers think that they think like scientists, when the reality is that most think exactly the opposite of scientists. Programmers and engineers seek to use knowledge to eliminate uncertainty; scientists seek uncertainty in the hope of discovering new knowledge.