[yongjik]

"Doc, will I die of liver cancer if I keep drinking?"

"Yes, science is very certain on that. You will die."

"So, you know everything there is to know about livers or cancers, with complete precision?"

"What? Of course not, why would anyone even think that?"

"Hah, I thought so, now I won't trust you!"

[mistermann]

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter.

Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to.

[yongjik]

That's like saying you decided to stop trusting doctors about cancers, because you saw a TV reporter talking about chemotherapy and it was clear he didn't know anything about cancer.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest", because I think the mainstream media's position is roughly "If we don't cut out fossil fuel we'll be in deep shit pretty soon (say, before 2100, probably sooner)", and it is a statement I think >90% of climate scientists would agree on.

(Actually, I think many would argue we're in deep shit now. E.g., massive reef death in Australia.)

[mistermann]

I disagree.

My observation is that the scientific community is making assertions of what is more or less the current understanding of the state of global warming to the best of their knowledge. Advocates and opportunists are taking this and converting it to something like "98% percent of scientists agree that global warming is 100% caused by man and we are absolutely doomed if we do not do something right now." (obviously I am being somewhat hyperbolic.)

So the scientists are observing this and thinking to themselves "What these people are saying is not technically true, but it seems like most likely an effective approach to invoke action amongst the general public, so we'll just keep our mouths shut." It may very well turn out that this is in fact the most pragmatic approach.

What I am saying is, it may turn out that this isn't the most pragmatic approach. Addressing climate change costs money, and lots of it. People generally don't like spending money unless there is a very obvious and more or less immediate benefit. Now imagine a convincing leader comes along who validates this distrust, and can point to legitimate cracks in these assertions (actually, I don't think Trump even had to do this, but don't underestimate the power of YouTube propaganda videos)....you might just find yourself with a president that you never would have imagined could have been elected.

It's interesting in a thread where we're generally talking about the nature of public conversation, where I am actually mostly on the side of believing that man-made climate change is a real thing, but my sense is that most people think (or speak as if at least) I am completely incorrect in the things I say, that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on some of the specifics. It's really quite an extraordinary claim. (iirc, this is one of the big reasons Joel Spolsky quit blogging, he found that he had to qualify every single sentence with multiple sentences of disclaimers, as too many people refused to discuss in an intellectually honest way, always nitpicking individual statements while completely ignoring the spirit of the discussion. Likely putting words in his mouth somewhat, but you get the idea.)

[DonHopkins]

If your arguments weren't hyperbolic exaggerations in the first place, then you would not have to state the obvious that you're being hyperbolic, and make disclaimers like "Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there." How about trying again, and starting with a non-hyperbolic, literally true argument that exaaaaaaaaaaaactly quotes the message with citations to evidence, which you don't have to disclaim in the next paragraph?

And we're still waiting for you to define what you meant by "speak" and list more names, when you claimed that "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak," offered Judith Curry as your only evidence, and then disclaimed "I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking". If not "literally prevented from speaking", then what exactly do you mean?

Next time you find yourself writing a disclaimer for what you just wrote in the previous paragraph, please reconsider simply rewriting the paragraph so it's not hyperbolic, is literally true, and exaaaaaaaaaaaactly quotes and cites the source.

Your claim she was prevented from speaking in any sense of the word is objectively false, and you've refused to provide any more evidence or examples when requested. She said herself that: "Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." Except for you, apparently.

By any definition of the word "speak", Judith Curry often speaks a hell of a lot of hyperbolic hot air, words which you yourself heard and parroted without fact checking, whether she's staring straight into the camera and blinking up a storm at literally 85 BPM while bloviating on FOX News: https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw https://youtu.be/HiTbd4Mc3kk , or spreading climate change denial lies on live national television, in front of Congress, in research papers, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on climate change denial web sites, and on her widely read blog.

[mistermann]

I find these conversations extremely frustrating.

I would like to ask you a question and I hope you can answer it honestly: do you believe in the notion that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?

I believe there is, and I think it is in part the problem all of western society is suffering from in these conversations. My core belief, I guess, is that all is not well in the scientific community. I genuinely believe there is substantial peer pressure applied to any scientist who does not toe the line. It is plausible that speaking out could literally end your career. That there are relatively few people complaining is not necessarily proof that there is no problem, that could simply be the effect of the silencing.

Is this true? I don't know for sure, but there are signs. If it is true, even partially, I think it is a big deal. I would hope HN would be a place where we could discuss such things in good faith. My perception is, that's not happening. My perception is that any point I raise is dismissed on a technicality.

Take for example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13386058

"And climate scientists are responsible for Donald Trump getting elected how exactly?"

Of course no single person or group is responsible. So take that same logic and go through all of the speculated causes, and each of those you can say "<x> is responsible for Donald Trump getting elected how exactly? And your end result is, you have discarded every single one of those theories, when the reality is, it was likely some combination of many of them.

I think I'll leave it at that, you can choose how you'd like to react to this.

[DonHopkins]

I find these conversations extremely frustrating because you refuse to define your terms or provide evidence for your conspiracy theories after being asked again and again, and instead you keep trying to derail the argument and move the goalposts.

So once again, please define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of scientists who were not allowed to speak, by that definition.

[Chris2048]

You don't need to know everything about livers and cancers. There is a lot to know that is irrelevant to alcoholism.

Also, the doc was technically wrong. He should of said "high probability", not "Yes, science is very certain".