Maybe Adam should expand his ventures to the business of overhyped music festivals for the tech crowd, they could call it WeBurn or something.

Not that anything like that ever had major problems

But on the topic, ZH is good some 20% of the time, the other 80% is just packaged talking points on "long big recession" (I mean that's actually the motto they follow), EUphobia and some amount of Russianphilia

Zerohedge is entertaining, I always look for the sources in the articles I find interesting, so I can sometimes just read those instead or cite those.

ZH's formulaic way of writing sensational bearish pieces gets a little tiresome after you notice it (posted submitted by guest readers like this one don't follow this format):

Intro about main point

Background on main point

Quote from the source about the main point, repeating the background section but in italics

Controversial next point, with a bolded section

Quote from the source about the controversial next point, repeating the exact prior section, but in italics

Tweets

Two line conclusion, with a finance pun.

I try to just read Bloomberg or Wall Street Journal directly. But Zerohedge's decade long bear market porn is so entertaining.

They used to have credit market specialists writing, but it seems they don't stick around for long.

ZeroHedge is the type of site that will quickly be labelled alt-right, fake news etc. in reality they tend to just interpret events in much more extreme ways but still rely on largely factual sources. I find the commentary to be much more thought provoking than consensus outlets. Glad to see some fellow HN'ers peruse the site.

A lot of the best folks on that site left a very long time ago. If you took ZH's advice/message over the last 5-10 years, you would have missed one of the greatest bull markets we have had and put your life savings into gold.

They shilled hard for Putin/Russia. The articles/comment section was a propaganda piece for the Kremlin. It forced a lot of good people with something interesting to say, to leave.

Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed.

[1]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...

..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..

It says co2 doesn't impact temperature:

"While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."

At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...

That's from the article. The author of that post has had virtually all of his work funded by the oil industry.

That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg...

Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

That has virtually nothing about his claims, just his funding. And while the source of funding is important, I'd love to see an analysis of the actual claims/science.

Oops, my mistake. I meant to link two articles, left off the second. This is the one I was referring to with my final para. Will edit my comment above if I can

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

Many thanks :)

The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-...

It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority.

Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf

Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.

Ironically this seems a good case of gelman amnesia. If you think he's wrong on climate (a MAJOR thing to be wrong about), why would you trust his opinion on subjects where you know less?

------

I didn't link the article, I just reply to the comment asking what was wrong. But he's very much wrong and that nature article doesn't support him. He said CO2 did not lead to a rise in temperature. That article says there was a lower than expected rise in temperature - it's still rose!

He said co2 has no significant impact on temperature which is definitely not what that paper is saying. They refer to co2 as anthropogenic forcing.

Full text is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/...

Right, that's the sort of bullshit that media has always pulled.

Give equal time to both sides, even when one side is blatantly full of shit. It's ridiculous.

The main thrust there is that CO2 is not the primary motivator, but instead something else is; which they provide some supporting links for (which I haven’t bothered to review).

And that CO2 not being “proven” as the primary motivator due to lack of testing is also trivially true — we only have the one earth to test on, so we test on models; and our understanding of earth is hardly complete, and so too must be our model.

The conclusions may be “wrong” but at least that article is hardly making things up as they go along

ZH does have a lot of conspiracy type articles that directly state that major world changing events aren't really and that we are being lied to about them which makes me question how much they of what they produce is based on facts and how much is based on their conspiratorial way of thinking. It makes it hard to trust what they are saying sometimes.

> Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing

Lets base it on reports of a couple of big name species and declare everything is fine. Facts!

if you read zerohedge you have long since decided that facts do not at all matter to you.

Does it make a claim that everything is fine? I find it curious how remarking that polar bears aren’t dying out should mean that there’s not lots of other species in trouble, not to mention tons of other things that have problems. Despite polar bears improving.

Reminds me of Yahoo during the first dotcom bubble.

Every commentator/speculator was drooling at the possibility of "boring" Yahoo going bust, despite Yahoo being the most sound business in the dotcom space, and ignoring walking warning signs like Pets.com.

3 and 4 are certainly false; whilst 1 and 2 are true, the end result of any change to the status quo of our environment (ie sea levels) is that society simply can’t afford a 7-70m rise in sea levels. Whether or not you ‘believe’ and this isn’t a religious perspective, this should be well accepted science by now, is that we are causing a change we can’t affoed; and even if we aren’t causing it, it looks like ‘factor x’ is, and we as a civilisation should do all we can to avoid it

4 could easily be true also. If I am a Polar Bear hunter but I can't travel so far in search of my quarry because the ice is melting and can't support the weight of my snowmobile then bear numbers could indeed rise. Whether they continue to rise as temperatures increase is anyone's guess.

In the end it matters little if the planet is warming from natural or man-made causes. If the environment is sufficiently degraded that things start to come apart then everything is in trouble.

After reading the Zerohedge blog for sometime now, I trained myself to spend time on posts Authored by Tyler Durden and avoid posts Authored by affiliated sites. In general you get some value when you read posts directly authored by Tyler Durden.

That ZeroHedge's article on climate change is the perfect shit sandwich of unrelated facts for someone with confirmation bias. It conveniently ignores the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has reached unprecedented levels. Levels that are clearly man made. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I honestly expected better from you.

11 years or we miss the stated target. A target the IPCC has assessed as important for preserving a manageable and comfortable way of life as we know it. Not 11 years and game over scrolls up the screen.

Al Gore didn't say we would be underwater by now either.

It's 11-12 years to try and slow things down enough. That's not exactly the same but it could end up effectively the same.

> It seems like anything even remotely threatening the climate change gospel is treated just as the Catholic Church treated heretics centuries ago.

Except one side is based on broad scientific consensus and the other is based on your precious GEOTUS and corporate cronies who would rather see the human race dead than any threat to profits.

> Literally, global warming activists, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are saying we have 11 years or less left of Earth,

They literally are not, conservatives & CC deniers like you just keep parroting this misrepresentation for the purposes of easy dismissal. The 11-12 years is a time period for REDUCING EMISSIONS to keep warming UNDER A CERTAIN LEVEL. but of course you know this and are simply lying about it.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines, alas quite egregiously.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Indeed nothing particularly controversial there and nothing that says that warming on a global scale is not happening.

Take the point that climates have always changed. Most definitely. However the concern has always been the rate at which warming is occurring. Given that humans and agriculture have fragmented the natural habitat and hence the ranges of species, the primary concern is the ability of species to adapt. I know that's too subtle a point for mainstream media to digest but it's pretty fundamental in describing the problem. For example, if you are a Brown Bear in northern Spain or the Pyrenees there's nowhere to go.

You could do the same for the other points. All verifiable. It's only once you start adding the consequences that things start to look a little problematic.

I've been reading zerohedge since 2008. I've not really liked the turn it took around 2015-2016 but it seems to have come back around and become a bit more balanced than it was in those early days of flirting with being a full on MAGA blog. It's, IMO, the best financial blog out there.

The problem I have with ZH is that it's always pessimistic, regardless of whether or not pessimism is warranted or logical.

Indeed, but that's a constant / predictable bias the you can easily correct for.