5 ms·

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 wa

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.
  - bubblesocks 10y ago
    He clearly said, "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." Being a college-trained writer, I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference between, "There are claims that..." and "People are told that..." Both are passive sentences, suggesting that some unspecified entity is making claims, and others are believing them. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two with whatever English degree you have. From my professional perspective, innocentoldguy literally said exactly what you just suggested he should have said, which leads me to believe that he is correct, and that you are judging his post based on emotion rather than rational thought. As innocentoldguy said, whether people agree or disagree with climate change is not the issue. The issue is that many people don't agree with it, and they believe they have legitimate reasons not to (some of which innocentoldguy outlined in his post). As someone who thinks climate change IS an issue, and wants something to be done about it, you can either down-vote and insult those who you perceive as not agreeing with you (and I’m not convinced innocentoldguy falls into that category), or you can acknowledge their concerns, and work to fix whatever negative perceptions exist in your position. In other words, you can listen to their concerns, and then work to resolve them. You're never going to convince anybody when you shout them down and down-vote them, but you might if you actually try to listen to what they’re saying and try to have a reasonable dialogue with them. Which seems to be the brightest course of action to you?
    - scarmig 10y ago
      "Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age."
  - bubblesocks 10y ago
    You wrote, "Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation," but that is simply not true. The reasons innocentoldguy listed are EXACTLY the reasons that skeptics give for denying climate change; which is what he claimed, isn't it? Sure, his original post could have been written better. So could yours. innocentoldguy did go on to clarify his position though, yet you're still trashing him because of your perceptions regarding his original post, rather than the validity of what he said, aren't you? Here's a HuffPo article you can read that outlines many of the same issues innocentoldguy brought up, if you still have doubts as to the validity of his statement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-ps...

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.
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  He clearly said, "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." Being a college-trained writer, I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference between, "There are claims that..." and "People are told that..." Both are passive sentences, suggesting that some unspecified entity is making claims, and others are believing them. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two with whatever English degree you have. From my professional perspective, innocentoldguy literally said exactly what you just suggested he should have said, which leads me to believe that he is correct, and that you are judging his post based on emotion rather than rational thought. As innocentoldguy said, whether people agree or disagree with climate change is not the issue. The issue is that many people don't agree with it, and they believe they have legitimate reasons not to (some of which innocentoldguy outlined in his post). As someone who thinks climate change IS an issue, and wants something to be done about it, you can either down-vote and insult those who you perceive as not agreeing with you (and I’m not convinced innocentoldguy falls into that category), or you can acknowledge their concerns, and work to fix whatever negative perceptions exist in your position. In other words, you can listen to their concerns, and then work to resolve them. You're never going to convince anybody when you shout them down and down-vote them, but you might if you actually try to listen to what they’re saying and try to have a reasonable dialogue with them. Which seems to be the brightest course of action to you?
  - scarmig 10y ago
    "Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age."
- bubblesocks 10y ago
  You wrote, "Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation," but that is simply not true. The reasons innocentoldguy listed are EXACTLY the reasons that skeptics give for denying climate change; which is what he claimed, isn't it? Sure, his original post could have been written better. So could yours. innocentoldguy did go on to clarify his position though, yet you're still trashing him because of your perceptions regarding his original post, rather than the validity of what he said, aren't you? Here's a HuffPo article you can read that outlines many of the same issues innocentoldguy brought up, if you still have doubts as to the validity of his statement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-ps...