<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>JPKab</author><text>Oh, you mean people who trust the expertise of the people who have devoted their entire working life to, you know, being an expert on a particular field of knowledge?&lt;p&gt;Question:  Do you ever run into customers who know nothing about software, and are demanding a capability that doesn&apos;t exist?  Sometimes these customers will argue, and tell you that you are wrong, despite the fact that you have orders of magnitude more knowledge on the subject than they do.  I call these people arrogant fools.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jacquesm</author><text>&amp;#62; And frankly, I&apos;m getting sick of people who don&apos;t even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists.&lt;p&gt;What about people without a single scientific degree supporting scientists?</text></item><item><author>JPKab</author><text>Thank you.  I think the biggest red flag I have with the people who question the science behind anthropogenic global warming theory isn&apos;t that they are questioning it, but they are doing so in a clearly non-scientific, selctively biased way.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;ve seen bad science debunked before (we all have), like ulcers being caused by stress(actually caused by bacteria), cold fusion, etc.  The folks cruasading against antrhopogenic global warming have all to often picked a position based on opposition to the most commonly proposed solution to antrho global warming(reducing consumption of fossil fuels), and then sought out science to support their position.&lt;p&gt;The problems are obvious:&lt;p&gt;1) Let&apos;s say there is a legitimate argument about reduction of fossil fuel use vs. a geo-engineering scheme to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  This argument never gets to happen because people who are against fossil fuel usage reduction as a solution never admit the problem even exists.  (I have to admit, I think reduction of carbon emissions is unrealistic, because the countries which benefit the most from carbon rich fuel consumption in the short term are the poorest countries with the most people.  I don&apos;t realistically see India decide to keep its people poor and without electricity/transport when they don&apos;t have to.  People don&apos;t give a shit about saving the planet until they have food in their own and children&apos;s bellies, and aren&apos;t dying of diseases easily prevented by fossil fuel powered infrastructure)&lt;p&gt;2) The group of people who are currently arguing that the warming is not caused by human activity heavily, HEAVILY overlap with the group of people who were denying that warming was even happening 8 years ago.  This is a huge red flag.  Do I discredit scientists if they are proven wrong one time? No.  But if a &quot;doctor&quot; says vaccines are bad because they cause autism, and when proven wrong, invents another argument against vaccines, I write him off as a quack who doesn&apos;t follow the scientific method. And I&apos;m right.  These guys are basically saying &quot;Don&apos;t cut carbon!  The planet isn&apos;t getting warmer.&quot;  Now they have changed their answer to &quot;Don&apos;t cut carbon.  It&apos;s not the reason the planet is getting warmer. &quot;&lt;p&gt;And frankly, I&apos;m getting sick of people who don&apos;t even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists.  It all reeks of the same attitude I was innundated with as a kid by my classmates because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs.</text></item><item><author>scarmig</author><text>They&apos;re not really comparable.&lt;p&gt;Real Climate is written by academic climatologists. Its last five non-open thread posts were:&lt;p&gt;1) The Greenland melt
2) What to study?
3) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2
4) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013
5) On Sensitivity Part II: Constraining Cloud Feedback without Cloud Observations&lt;p&gt;Climate Audit is written by a retired mathematician/mining prospector. Last 5 posts:&lt;p&gt;1) More on Acton’s “Investigation”
2) Acton and “Natural Person Powers”
3) Acton and Muir Russell at Tribunal
4) Duke C Punctures More Attempted UEA Obtuseness
5) More Tricks from East Anglia&lt;p&gt;Watts Up With That, written by a former television meteorologist/newscaster:&lt;p&gt;1) The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity
2) NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?
3) The yearly lukewarm report
4) Here there be Dragons
5) New paper by Richard Tol – Targets for global climate policy: An Overview&lt;p&gt;I think that speaks for itself.</text></item><item><author>pdonis</author><text>I would not recommend reading realclimate.org without also reading climate audit and watts up with that:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://climateaudit.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://climateaudit.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wattsupwiththat.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wattsupwiththat.com/&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>moultano</author><text>Here are the resources realclimate.org suggests.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the details of the science, they suggest just reading the IPCC reports.&lt;p&gt;Here&apos;s a faq from the IPCC that is basic but thorough. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-f...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>MichaelGG</author><text>Can anyone recommend a good book (preferably on Kindle) that explains climate change and our actual scientific knowledge? The issue seems to be so politicized that all sources seem incredibly biased. Sure, there might changes happening, but from history, isn&apos;t that what the climate does? It seems that one side portrays it as no big deal, and the other says we&apos;ll all die in a few decades.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m not looking for something telling me how to behave or react, just something that covers how/what we know for certain. Or is the science and understanding required too far out of reach for laymen?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Massive glacier collapse</title><url>http://unofficialnetworks.com/collapse-video-glacial-size-city-116670/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>anon1385</author><text>There is a difference between supporting scientists as individuals or supporting their individual claims and supporting the scientific methods and the institutions involved in the practice of science.&lt;p&gt;As someone without the knowledge, time or intellect to critique climate science in depth, I don&apos;t &apos;support&apos; the scientific consensus &amp;#38; IPPC reports vs the WUTW blog because I personally support the scientists involved. I do it because I have a certain level of trust in the ability of scientific processes (and the institutions that enforce/practice them) to provide us with better understanding of the world. It&apos;s the same reason I&apos;m prepared to fly in a plane even though I don&apos;t have the physics or engineering qualifications or knowledge to asses whether it will stay in the air.&lt;p&gt;Also, what I think you are trying to say without really saying it is that people without scientific degrees should be able to critique science. I&apos;m sure nearly everybody involved in climate science is fine with that, so long as you are prepared to publish your data and methods and face the scrutiny of peer review (finding a journal that will publish doctored graphs, fabricated citations and grossly misused statistical methods is probably the real challenge: even &lt;i&gt;Medical Hypotheses&lt;/i&gt; is peer reviewed now…).</text><parent_chain><item><author>jacquesm</author><text>&amp;#62; And frankly, I&apos;m getting sick of people who don&apos;t even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists.&lt;p&gt;What about people without a single scientific degree supporting scientists?</text></item><item><author>JPKab</author><text>Thank you.  I think the biggest red flag I have with the people who question the science behind anthropogenic global warming theory isn&apos;t that they are questioning it, but they are doing so in a clearly non-scientific, selctively biased way.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;ve seen bad science debunked before (we all have), like ulcers being caused by stress(actually caused by bacteria), cold fusion, etc.  The folks cruasading against antrhopogenic global warming have all to often picked a position based on opposition to the most commonly proposed solution to antrho global warming(reducing consumption of fossil fuels), and then sought out science to support their position.&lt;p&gt;The problems are obvious:&lt;p&gt;1) Let&apos;s say there is a legitimate argument about reduction of fossil fuel use vs. a geo-engineering scheme to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  This argument never gets to happen because people who are against fossil fuel usage reduction as a solution never admit the problem even exists.  (I have to admit, I think reduction of carbon emissions is unrealistic, because the countries which benefit the most from carbon rich fuel consumption in the short term are the poorest countries with the most people.  I don&apos;t realistically see India decide to keep its people poor and without electricity/transport when they don&apos;t have to.  People don&apos;t give a shit about saving the planet until they have food in their own and children&apos;s bellies, and aren&apos;t dying of diseases easily prevented by fossil fuel powered infrastructure)&lt;p&gt;2) The group of people who are currently arguing that the warming is not caused by human activity heavily, HEAVILY overlap with the group of people who were denying that warming was even happening 8 years ago.  This is a huge red flag.  Do I discredit scientists if they are proven wrong one time? No.  But if a &quot;doctor&quot; says vaccines are bad because they cause autism, and when proven wrong, invents another argument against vaccines, I write him off as a quack who doesn&apos;t follow the scientific method. And I&apos;m right.  These guys are basically saying &quot;Don&apos;t cut carbon!  The planet isn&apos;t getting warmer.&quot;  Now they have changed their answer to &quot;Don&apos;t cut carbon.  It&apos;s not the reason the planet is getting warmer. &quot;&lt;p&gt;And frankly, I&apos;m getting sick of people who don&apos;t even have a single scientific degree attacking scientists.  It all reeks of the same attitude I was innundated with as a kid by my classmates because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs.</text></item><item><author>scarmig</author><text>They&apos;re not really comparable.&lt;p&gt;Real Climate is written by academic climatologists. Its last five non-open thread posts were:&lt;p&gt;1) The Greenland melt
2) What to study?
3) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2
4) Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013
5) On Sensitivity Part II: Constraining Cloud Feedback without Cloud Observations&lt;p&gt;Climate Audit is written by a retired mathematician/mining prospector. Last 5 posts:&lt;p&gt;1) More on Acton’s “Investigation”
2) Acton and “Natural Person Powers”
3) Acton and Muir Russell at Tribunal
4) Duke C Punctures More Attempted UEA Obtuseness
5) More Tricks from East Anglia&lt;p&gt;Watts Up With That, written by a former television meteorologist/newscaster:&lt;p&gt;1) The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity
2) NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?
3) The yearly lukewarm report
4) Here there be Dragons
5) New paper by Richard Tol – Targets for global climate policy: An Overview&lt;p&gt;I think that speaks for itself.</text></item><item><author>pdonis</author><text>I would not recommend reading realclimate.org without also reading climate audit and watts up with that:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://climateaudit.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://climateaudit.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wattsupwiththat.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wattsupwiththat.com/&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>moultano</author><text>Here are the resources realclimate.org suggests.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the details of the science, they suggest just reading the IPCC reports.&lt;p&gt;Here&apos;s a faq from the IPCC that is basic but thorough. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-f...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>MichaelGG</author><text>Can anyone recommend a good book (preferably on Kindle) that explains climate change and our actual scientific knowledge? The issue seems to be so politicized that all sources seem incredibly biased. Sure, there might changes happening, but from history, isn&apos;t that what the climate does? It seems that one side portrays it as no big deal, and the other says we&apos;ll all die in a few decades.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m not looking for something telling me how to behave or react, just something that covers how/what we know for certain. Or is the science and understanding required too far out of reach for laymen?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Massive glacier collapse</title><url>http://unofficialnetworks.com/collapse-video-glacial-size-city-116670/</url></story>