5 ms·

I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since m

I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since most people simply play team-sports, and couldn't care less what the facts are. Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because: 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen. 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen. 3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen. 4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data. 5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas. Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?

_coldfire 10y ago
Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted. You haven't said anything out of line.
    - bubblesocks 10y ago
      I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit. In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.
normalhuman12 10y ago
Do you actually believe these points or are you simply showing the flawed logic people use to justify climate change denial? 1. Maybe the sensationalist news was claiming an ice age was coming, but it was never really claimed by scientists. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 4. Is there any evidence of these claims? How do current temperatures cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change? Each of the first 6 months of 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded.
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  As I said a couple of posts down, the parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming," and I simply answered his question; both accurately and truthfully, I might add. Feel free to do a Google search on "why people reject climate change," if you believe my statement is wrong. Nowhere in my post did I ever speak to, or infer, my views on the subject, since they are irrelevant. I merely answered a question with factual data. I find the knee-jerk down-votes and negative commentary disturbing, since my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided, but rather based entirely on the irrational assumption that I don't think the same way others do. I would think, being the intelligent lot we're supposed to be here on Hacker News, we would see my commentary as a list of obstacles to overcome in order to reach those who reject climate change based on these observations, rather than killing the messenger, so to speak. Seems like the prudent course of action to me, anyway.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    "my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided" Actually, it is. Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation. That's why you're receiving downvotes. Phrasing things as e.g. "People are told that the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" would be a better way to put things, if you're merely stating factual information. Phrasing it as something like "the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" makes it sound as if you yourself believe it.
anderspitman 10y ago
Sad you're being downvoted. I have many climate-change denying friends and family members, and these are exactly the arguments they use. So much of it basically boils down to them perceiving the left-wingers as crying wolf for many years. Now we're in a position when most scientists agree the wolf is actually coming, but the right is desensitized and politically incentivized to oppose action. We have to thoroughly understand both sides of a debate if the truth is eventually supposed to win out.
anderspitman 10y ago
I have a question for you as well. One argument I've heard from climate-change skeptics is that the earth has gone through ice ages in the past without any intervention from humanity, so who's to say we're responsible for the changes we're seeing now? There are some obvious counterarguments, but I'm curious of your opinion and others here.
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  Why would his opinion matter? Doesn't what he has already said stand on its own merit? In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.
  - anderspitman 10y ago
    I think it's sad that you've been conditioned to assume that, but I agree it does happen a lot. But in this case I am literally curious what parent thinks about this argument, because they seem to have a good grasp on the POV of many of my friends, and I want to understand better ways of engaging in dialogue.
    - innocentoldguy 10y ago
      You're right. It does happen a lot. Far too often, in fact. Not only is it as annoying as hell, I think it also hinders progress. Glad to hear you're above it.
      - anderspitman 10y ago
        Not above it or any of the traps we all fall into as humans, but try to keep an eye out and recognize when I'm doing it.
    - bubblesocks 10y ago
      My apologies for leaping to conclusions. As you said, it does happen all too often though. I'll try not to let that taint my judgements in the future.
vic-traill 10y ago
Interesting and provocative. That may be difficult for folks today. > 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen. I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent. > 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen. Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this. I find 'many of us' to be a problematic phrase. You're making a claim beyond your personal experience using this phrase and it sure doesn't apply to me. It may be your experience, and that's fine. But I'm not giving you a pass on claiming it was anyone's experience beyond your own. I am interested in where you encountered these perspectives; I am aware I may be retro-fitting my own memories. [edit: as per usual fixing mobile autocorrect and formating ]
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  > I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. Really? I do: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970... > Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this. I think he's referring to either the "acid rain/forest die-off: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-acid-rain-forest-die-off-prove-to-be-pure-fallacy-from-hysterical-scientists-a/#sthash.mnIrc2TA.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac... or the rainforest (this article contains a bunch of environmental scares that didn't happen): http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-acid-rain-forest-die-off-prove-to-be-pure-fallacy-from-hysterical-scientists-a/#sthash.mnIrc2TA.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac... Or maybe the forest fire commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4 Or maybe conflating them to make a point.
  - anderspitman 10y ago
    The first article you linked seems to indicate that most scientists in peer reviewed papers were actually predicting warming, not cooling (42 papers vs 7 papers). Also, I didn't read it carefully but I did not see anything mentioning the government claiming these things. However, I think it's still an important point that climate change skeptics CLAIM to have been told these these in the 70s, and use it as an important part of their argument.

_coldfire 10y ago

Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it? At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so

innocentoldguy 10y ago
Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote? The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming." To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change. I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views. Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue. Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted. You haven't said anything out of line.
  - bubblesocks 10y ago
    I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.
bubblesocks 10y ago
That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit. In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.

normalhuman12 10y ago

Do you actually believe these points or are you simply showing the flawed logic people use to justify climate change denial? 1. Maybe the sensationalist news was claiming an ice age was coming, but it was never really claimed by scientists. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 4. Is there any evidence of these claims? How do current temperatures cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change? Each of the first 6 months of 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded.

innocentoldguy 10y ago
As I said a couple of posts down, the parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming," and I simply answered his question; both accurately and truthfully, I might add. Feel free to do a Google search on "why people reject climate change," if you believe my statement is wrong. Nowhere in my post did I ever speak to, or infer, my views on the subject, since they are irrelevant. I merely answered a question with factual data. I find the knee-jerk down-votes and negative commentary disturbing, since my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided, but rather based entirely on the irrational assumption that I don't think the same way others do. I would think, being the intelligent lot we're supposed to be here on Hacker News, we would see my commentary as a list of obstacles to overcome in order to reach those who reject climate change based on these observations, rather than killing the messenger, so to speak. Seems like the prudent course of action to me, anyway.
- scarmig 10y ago
  "my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided" Actually, it is. Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation. That's why you're receiving downvotes. Phrasing things as e.g. "People are told that the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" would be a better way to put things, if you're merely stating factual information. Phrasing it as something like "the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" makes it sound as if you yourself believe it.

anderspitman 10y ago

Sad you're being downvoted. I have many climate-change denying friends and family members, and these are exactly the arguments they use. So much of it basically boils down to them perceiving the left-wingers as crying wolf for many years. Now we're in a position when most scientists agree the wolf is actually coming, but the right is desensitized and politically incentivized to oppose action. We have to thoroughly understand both sides of a debate if the truth is eventually supposed to win out.

anderspitman 10y ago

I have a question for you as well. One argument I've heard from climate-change skeptics is that the earth has gone through ice ages in the past without any intervention from humanity, so who's to say we're responsible for the changes we're seeing now? There are some obvious counterarguments, but I'm curious of your opinion and others here.

bubblesocks 10y ago
Why would his opinion matter? Doesn't what he has already said stand on its own merit? In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.
- anderspitman 10y ago
  I think it's sad that you've been conditioned to assume that, but I agree it does happen a lot. But in this case I am literally curious what parent thinks about this argument, because they seem to have a good grasp on the POV of many of my friends, and I want to understand better ways of engaging in dialogue.
  - innocentoldguy 10y ago
    You're right. It does happen a lot. Far too often, in fact. Not only is it as annoying as hell, I think it also hinders progress. Glad to hear you're above it.
    - anderspitman 10y ago
      Not above it or any of the traps we all fall into as humans, but try to keep an eye out and recognize when I'm doing it.
  - bubblesocks 10y ago
    My apologies for leaping to conclusions. As you said, it does happen all too often though. I'll try not to let that taint my judgements in the future.

vic-traill 10y ago

Interesting and provocative. That may be difficult for folks today. > 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen. I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent. > 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen. Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this. I find 'many of us' to be a problematic phrase. You're making a claim beyond your personal experience using this phrase and it sure doesn't apply to me. It may be your experience, and that's fine. But I'm not giving you a pass on claiming it was anyone's experience beyond your own. I am interested in where you encountered these perspectives; I am aware I may be retro-fitting my own memories. [edit: as per usual fixing mobile autocorrect and formating ]

bubblesocks 10y ago
> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. Really? I do: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970... > Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this. I think he's referring to either the "acid rain/forest die-off: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-acid-rain-forest-die-off-prove-to-be-pure-fallacy-from-hysterical-scientists-a/#sthash.mnIrc2TA.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac... or the rainforest (this article contains a bunch of environmental scares that didn't happen): http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-acid-rain-forest-die-off-prove-to-be-pure-fallacy-from-hysterical-scientists-a/#sthash.mnIrc2TA.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac... Or maybe the forest fire commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4 Or maybe conflating them to make a point.
- anderspitman 10y ago
  The first article you linked seems to indicate that most scientists in peer reviewed papers were actually predicting warming, not cooling (42 papers vs 7 papers). Also, I didn't read it carefully but I did not see anything mentioning the government claiming these things. However, I think it's still an important point that climate change skeptics CLAIM to have been told these these in the 70s, and use it as an important part of their argument.