Item — HN Reader

This is an important distinction, and the other amateurs always came early in the field's history when it was a simpler science.

Climate science is not in its infancy. It's broad, deep and complex.

I desperately hope you're not implying that we should give credence to the din of crackpot circus clowns who think dramatic climate change isn't really happening and that Al Gore is personally placing space heaters on the glaciers and polar icecaps.

2 comments

>"I desperately hope you're not implying that we should give credence to the din of crackpot circus clowns who think dramatic climate change isn't really happening and that Al Gore is personally placing space heaters on the glaciers and polar icecaps."

No, I think we should give credence to the work of amateurs like Steve McIntyre whose high quality criticisms of specific pieces of work have been accepted into the scientific literature and who has been an important force in helping us see more clearly what is happening with the global climate.

But since you seem to have your mind made up, I guess we should just call each other names.

I'll take those downvotes as a "Yes, Al Gore is personally placing space heaters on glaciers."

Climate science is broad, and a few parts are deep. Nevertheless, amateurs such as JGC and Steve McIntyre have identified and corrected errors in the field.

You are being downmodded because you are nonsensically comparing them to deranged conspiracy theorists. You do so without evidence, most likely for political purposes.

You are being downmodded because you are nonsensically comparing them to deranged conspiracy theorists. You do so without evidence, most likely for political purposes

I have no political purpose -- and I'm not sure how politics play in watching shipping lanes open up on the north pole.

I'm glad if they find errors. But correct me if I'm wrong, it hasn't change anything. And this is what concerns me: that it raises a hand for debate. The debate is over. We need to act and we need to have started yesterday. I feel like I'm watching a woman get raped, but instead of people stopping it, they want to talk about if it's really "rape" if the man wears a condom.

We are at a tipping point and we can, and should, cut carbon emissions. Moving to alternate energy sources is an important step that we will make eventually anyway, but to do it sooner means that the poorest of the world will not get quite as screwed in the end.

Most of the flaws that Steve found are in studies that claim to show that current climate warming is unprecedented in human history. These studies are important for drumming up the panic that you so ably display. It ought to be of interest to any person that we get these studies right before we squander trillions of dollars on useless environmental projects in a world where half of humanity is still desperately poor.

But it seems that many people are more interested in having their own pet ecopocalypse to feel self-righteous about than actually getting the science correct.

So you're saying the science is "wildly" off its claim? The north polar ice cap isn't already half gone? No. You want to nitpick exact numbers because that will stall any process, and hey, you have nothing to lose.

You're not poor. You're not at risk. It's the water supplies of millions of poor that are vanishing, not yours. It's the possible forced migration of millions that's pending, not yours.

These are not "useless environmental projects". They are changes we will make regardless. But doing them now will save lives.

Let me get this straight.

Some amateurs have identified errors in the published literature. Because you are concerned that their corrections might affect the debate, you compare them to deranged conspiracy theorists in an effort to discredit them.

You do this because you feel that, in light of new evidence, we may not implement the specific policies you wish to be enacted. Then you claim you have no political purpose?

Some amateurs have identified errors in the published literature. They've identified typos. If they show to be significant, I would most certainly want to know.

Because you are concerned that their corrections might affect the debate, you compare them to deranged conspiracy theorists in an effort to discredit them.

No, I simply don't want action to stop because an amatuer found a minor error and start having to go back to debating it all from the beginning again.