Re:Ask HN: Climate Denialism on HN?
by patio11 on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:30AM
(#1125952)
Every time someone checks something, the result is far less than originally claimed.
Statements like this make us look like rabid partisans who are incapable of acknowledging that any actual science is occurring, and will be used to dismiss us when we make claims which are factually well-founded. Let's keep to claims which we can make which are well-supported by the evidence: there is significant scientific uncertainty about the degree to which global warming is anthropogenic, the "consensus" has been oversold, the rigorous system of checks that we have been told existed has repeatedly failed in ways both subtle and obvious, and the costs of measures designed to address global warming are unknown but acknowledged to be very, very high.
Incidentally, I would soft peddle one fact that I know but believe is inadvisable to say too loudly right now: the process of global warming science has been systematically compromised by politically motivated fraud. Twelve months ago, saying that around me would have drawn the same rebuke as above: don't say that, we don't have evidence for it, let's stick to what we can demonstrate. Then the "Climategate" emails came out. I don't care who you are or where you stand on this issue, threatening to destroy evidence to avoid it falling into the hands of researchers immediately pushes us waaaaaaaay into the "fraud" category. However, in terms of marketing, I'd say softpeddle that factually justifiable conclusion until we've shaken the apple tree a little more, and can present it as part of the pattern of behavior it appears to be, rather than "a regrettable incident from a single overworked, much put-upon scientist who might have contributed a few lines to a report which is 99.99% good science."
Sadly, we're not likely to get any help from the U.S. mainstream media in shaking the apple tree, at least until I can think of a good hook for why climate fraud is Dubya's fault. Oh well.
Statements like this make us look like rabid partisans who are incapable of acknowledging that any actual science is occurring, and will be used to dismiss us when we make claims which are factually well-founded. Let's keep to claims which we can make which are well-supported by the evidence: there is significant scientific uncertainty about the degree to which global warming is anthropogenic, the "consensus" has been oversold, the rigorous system of checks that we have been told existed has repeatedly failed in ways both subtle and obvious, and the costs of measures designed to address global warming are unknown but acknowledged to be very, very high.
Incidentally, I would soft peddle one fact that I know but believe is inadvisable to say too loudly right now: the process of global warming science has been systematically compromised by politically motivated fraud. Twelve months ago, saying that around me would have drawn the same rebuke as above: don't say that, we don't have evidence for it, let's stick to what we can demonstrate. Then the "Climategate" emails came out. I don't care who you are or where you stand on this issue, threatening to destroy evidence to avoid it falling into the hands of researchers immediately pushes us waaaaaaaay into the "fraud" category. However, in terms of marketing, I'd say softpeddle that factually justifiable conclusion until we've shaken the apple tree a little more, and can present it as part of the pattern of behavior it appears to be, rather than "a regrettable incident from a single overworked, much put-upon scientist who might have contributed a few lines to a report which is 99.99% good science."
Sadly, we're not likely to get any help from the U.S. mainstream media in shaking the apple tree, at least until I can think of a good hook for why climate fraud is Dubya's fault. Oh well.