8 ms·

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Woul

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- instantwhat 7y ago
  > Or are you trying to reveal some sort of hidden value judgment or bias or something related to the politics of global warming? Mainly that, although you aren't the person I posed the question to, and it may not apply to you. Assuming you're being sincere, it doesn't appear to. Since we've come this far, if I may continue asking you: Since you seem to sincerely believe that AGW theory is soundly supported by basic science, what do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science? What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest? What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper? I appreciate your thoughtful discussion.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - instantwhat 7y ago
      I asked you three specific questions: 1. What do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science? 2. What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest? 3. What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper? You then replied with 1,100 words that do not answer any of the three questions I asked. Instead you offered generic, verbose opinion about science and scientists and politics. I don't know who you are trying to convince, but if it's me, you didn't, because you did not answer my serious, specific questions. Science is advanced by specific answers to specific questions. If you are as serious about this issue as you ostensibly are, you ought to have specific answers for these specific questions. If you don't have them, and if you won't get them, then do us both a favor and just admit that you don't know the answers and aren't willing to find them. It is rude to offer verbose bullshit to someone attempting to engage you in serious discussion.
      - dang 7y ago
        We need you to stop posting flamewar comments to Hacker News if you don't want us to ban you again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        instantwhat 7y ago
        I haven't been banned from HN before, but I'm not surprised that some of my comments resemble ones from those you have banned. Help me understand, please: what about that comment makes it a flamewar comment? I was attempting to engage him in serious discussion, and he offered voluminous nonsense in return. Is it verboten to point that out? Where did I cross your line? By the way, I recently exchanged a few comments with you about HN's political bias, and you asked for examples. This submission's comments, and the flagging of my comment, is a good example of what I was talking about. There is a clear bias in that comments espousing a certain view are downvoted and flagged, even without violating the guidelines. It seems clear that you quickly respond to comments which are flagged, even those flagged by the person being responded to. If I may ask, since I haven't seen this question asked or answered before: do you also police downvotes and flags? i.e. when people downvote, kill, and flag comments that do not deserve to be, do you correct it? It doesn't appear so to me, and that creates an additional avenue for bias to be expressed: since only users with certain karma scores can vouch for wrongly flagged comments, it's easy for users with high scores to wrongly flag comments from users whose scores do not allow them to protest.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        dang 7y ago
        Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how badly someone else posted. Please don't give in to the temptation on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

instantwhat 7y ago
> Or are you trying to reveal some sort of hidden value judgment or bias or something related to the politics of global warming? Mainly that, although you aren't the person I posed the question to, and it may not apply to you. Assuming you're being sincere, it doesn't appear to. Since we've come this far, if I may continue asking you: Since you seem to sincerely believe that AGW theory is soundly supported by basic science, what do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science? What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest? What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper? I appreciate your thoughtful discussion.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - instantwhat 7y ago
    I asked you three specific questions: 1. What do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science? 2. What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest? 3. What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper? You then replied with 1,100 words that do not answer any of the three questions I asked. Instead you offered generic, verbose opinion about science and scientists and politics. I don't know who you are trying to convince, but if it's me, you didn't, because you did not answer my serious, specific questions. Science is advanced by specific answers to specific questions. If you are as serious about this issue as you ostensibly are, you ought to have specific answers for these specific questions. If you don't have them, and if you won't get them, then do us both a favor and just admit that you don't know the answers and aren't willing to find them. It is rude to offer verbose bullshit to someone attempting to engage you in serious discussion.
    - dang 7y ago
      We need you to stop posting flamewar comments to Hacker News if you don't want us to ban you again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - instantwhat 7y ago
        I haven't been banned from HN before, but I'm not surprised that some of my comments resemble ones from those you have banned. Help me understand, please: what about that comment makes it a flamewar comment? I was attempting to engage him in serious discussion, and he offered voluminous nonsense in return. Is it verboten to point that out? Where did I cross your line? By the way, I recently exchanged a few comments with you about HN's political bias, and you asked for examples. This submission's comments, and the flagging of my comment, is a good example of what I was talking about. There is a clear bias in that comments espousing a certain view are downvoted and flagged, even without violating the guidelines. It seems clear that you quickly respond to comments which are flagged, even those flagged by the person being responded to. If I may ask, since I haven't seen this question asked or answered before: do you also police downvotes and flags? i.e. when people downvote, kill, and flag comments that do not deserve to be, do you correct it? It doesn't appear so to me, and that creates an additional avenue for bias to be expressed: since only users with certain karma scores can vouch for wrongly flagged comments, it's easy for users with high scores to wrongly flag comments from users whose scores do not allow them to protest.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        dang 7y ago
        Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how badly someone else posted. Please don't give in to the temptation on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html