3 ms·

Please don't be confrontational. You don't need to convince this commenter. You need to convince the hundreds of people who will read their comments and decide

Please don't be confrontational. You don't need to convince this commenter. You need to convince the hundreds of people who will read their comments and decide which stance is more reasonable.

intended 10y ago
This isn't about reasonable. Theres tons of data out there, literally an entire field of work in science. And that entire field of work is regularly debunked and debated with such old adages as - "scientists have an incentive to get grants, so they keep putting out material which the < evil illuminati types > want to hear". And I've seen such arguments on HN. I think there isn't any convincing left to be done, at most link people to sources and if they are motivated they'll cover it themselves. Whats left is collective action.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  >This isn't about reasonable. Well then, in the court of public opinion at least, you've already lost. Nobody is going to listen to the hobo screaming about how the government is spying on us in our own houses with our TVs. It doesn't matter if he's right if everyone ignores him, in fact the opposite, since people will associate the argument with screaming hobos. Don't be a scientifically literate screaming hobo. It hurts the cause.
  - intended 10y ago
    The history of failure of climate science is a study in the use of the court of public opinion. That's where climate science was taken and rendered impotent, and more lasting damage done to it and to expertise itself, that we haven't recovered. A long time ago, a particular news network helped climate cranks gain public recognition The scientists had ignored these cranks, rightly inferring that engaging with crazy people makes them seem more credible. The media group spun this reticence into a conspiracy by liberal/ivory tower/money stealing/hippies; evil experts crushing the lone voice of reason. Simultaneously, the political party best served by this audience, developed their language and communication playbook to convert the media attention into a political force. When scientists realized that they had to engage if they wanted to have any hope, they accepted tv shows or debates. The hope was that if they engaged, if facts and science as presented, people would understand what was at stake and would act in good faith. And as you can guess, this was naive. The point was never to have an informed debate, it was to have a spectacle. Scientists and science lost. This system works so well, that within the past few years, it's been expanded to target something as fundamental as evolution. Frankly I'm in awe of it, and take notes. more than tech, communication and marketing are America's strengths. In short I'm not a scientific literate screaming hobo. I'm an old fart, who's seen the hope in this fight die out several times. I've even been at the point where I said "human beings won't let this happen. It's just too obvious and important." Twice. I no longer believe that there is another "side" to reach out to, because the message will never get through. Instead it's time to just connect with people who are already acting, focus on ideas which move the needle, invest in communication and mobilization.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      If you're frustrated, don't take that out on people who are misinformed. They aren't in your news bubble, and for years everything they've seen has said that climate science is bunk. If you don't want to be a reasonable, level headed and compassionate fellow human who wishes to gently lead in the direction of truth, rather be silent so that someone else can.

Please don't be confrontational. You don't need to convince this commenter. You need to convince the hundreds of people who will read their comments and decide which stance is more reasonable.

intended 10y ago

This isn't about reasonable. Theres tons of data out there, literally an entire field of work in science. And that entire field of work is regularly debunked and debated with such old adages as - "scientists have an incentive to get grants, so they keep putting out material which the < evil illuminati types > want to hear". And I've seen such arguments on HN. I think there isn't any convincing left to be done, at most link people to sources and if they are motivated they'll cover it themselves. Whats left is collective action.

snovv_crash 10y ago
>This isn't about reasonable. Well then, in the court of public opinion at least, you've already lost. Nobody is going to listen to the hobo screaming about how the government is spying on us in our own houses with our TVs. It doesn't matter if he's right if everyone ignores him, in fact the opposite, since people will associate the argument with screaming hobos. Don't be a scientifically literate screaming hobo. It hurts the cause.
- intended 10y ago
  The history of failure of climate science is a study in the use of the court of public opinion. That's where climate science was taken and rendered impotent, and more lasting damage done to it and to expertise itself, that we haven't recovered. A long time ago, a particular news network helped climate cranks gain public recognition The scientists had ignored these cranks, rightly inferring that engaging with crazy people makes them seem more credible. The media group spun this reticence into a conspiracy by liberal/ivory tower/money stealing/hippies; evil experts crushing the lone voice of reason. Simultaneously, the political party best served by this audience, developed their language and communication playbook to convert the media attention into a political force. When scientists realized that they had to engage if they wanted to have any hope, they accepted tv shows or debates. The hope was that if they engaged, if facts and science as presented, people would understand what was at stake and would act in good faith. And as you can guess, this was naive. The point was never to have an informed debate, it was to have a spectacle. Scientists and science lost. This system works so well, that within the past few years, it's been expanded to target something as fundamental as evolution. Frankly I'm in awe of it, and take notes. more than tech, communication and marketing are America's strengths. In short I'm not a scientific literate screaming hobo. I'm an old fart, who's seen the hope in this fight die out several times. I've even been at the point where I said "human beings won't let this happen. It's just too obvious and important." Twice. I no longer believe that there is another "side" to reach out to, because the message will never get through. Instead it's time to just connect with people who are already acting, focus on ideas which move the needle, invest in communication and mobilization.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    If you're frustrated, don't take that out on people who are misinformed. They aren't in your news bubble, and for years everything they've seen has said that climate science is bunk. If you don't want to be a reasonable, level headed and compassionate fellow human who wishes to gently lead in the direction of truth, rather be silent so that someone else can.