3 ms·

Neat little article, preaching to the choir unfortunately. I wonder if there's a single climate denier around here. Useful to send to others, though.

by Fej 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago
There are dozens. They come out in every climate thread.
aaron695 9y ago
I am a climate denier. Happy to agree with AGW but this is NOT what climate denial is about. This is why this article is fake. What global warming is about, not the religious babble in articles like this, is how bad is it? and how bad is dealing with it? Then as a scientist and logical person go down the best route. And the evidence to me is clear, the best route is to not deal with it. Hence we once again start a religious war in threads like this. How to deal with these religious wars is unclear, but if you want to really help the world, solving this would be an amazing start. A large part of the population will always be religious, be it about the gods or GMO's or Global warming. How does one solve these issues? This is really where it's at.
- pale-hands 9y ago
  If you are "Happy to agree with AGW", you're not a climate denier, or even a climate skeptic as Scientific American would define it. (Unless, of course, your agreement with AGW is not really that). The article is about consilience of evidence, and doesn't even touch on mitigation, so it's hard to guess what you are reacting against. Your characterisation of the controversy as religious is interesting to me. We would both probably apply the adjective "religious" to firmly held beliefs that are unsupported by the facts, but would disagree as to the facts. And we would both not apply the "religious" adjective to ourselves.
  - tannerwj 9y ago
    Unfortunately, I can totally relate to him. I have been called a climate denier just for disagreeing with a proposed solution. Climate change and its proposed solutions (for one the Paris Accord) have almost a religious following that are quick to attack anyone who disagree with them on even the smallest point. It is no way to solve problems.
    - pale-hands 9y ago
      Aaron695 described himself as a "climate denier", though, which is unusual. The Paris Accord, by itself, cannot do nearly enough to avert disaster, but it was the best that could be done diplomatically (especially in the light of US domestic politics). As such, it's better than nothing. No question that the whole subject has become very toxic and politically polarised, and that people have hair-trigger responses that sometimes misfire.
    - polotics 9y ago
      I call strawman-citation needed. Could you link to any post on this site where you observed this religious following?
- polotics 9y ago
  On HN you really get the hard edge of denialism, probably well financed shills, very interesting. Clearly the massive non-sequitur in the statement below is super interesting obfuscation: the article states that global warming is real, so how can you call it fake if you agree that it is real? (quote) "Happy to agree with AGW but this is NOT what climate denial is about. This is why this article is fake." (end quote) As I understand it this sleight of words is used just for the confusion, trying to get readers into fast-thinking less rational mode. Then the money shot, delivered with no analysis, no model, and crucially, no evidence: (quote) "And the evidence to me is clear, the best route is to not deal with it." (end quote) We are not talking about climate warming, but its direct consequence which is climate disruption, a few degrees warming leading to much higher likelihood of extreme weather events, this has not been news since at least Katrina and the california drought & fires. Not dealing with it is not an option when your house is burning. Implictly there is the hope that somebody else's house or lake gets hit, but for the US it's no dice, there are massive fragilities everywhere. (Jersey, NYC subway, ...) Carbon gets gigantic subsidies, not just direct but also in military budgetting for oil supply protection. Please go to www.realclimate.org
  - pale-hands 9y ago
    You addressed the substance (or not) of aaron695's post far better than I did, but I'm prepared to believe that the post is sincere, absent any actual evidence of shilling. (See also, Trump's repeated insinuation that protestors must be paid). I don't doubt that there is a shit-ton of political trolling, which degrades discourse even if it does not persuade.

Neat little article, preaching to the choir unfortunately. I wonder if there's a single climate denier around here. Useful to send to others, though.

by Fej 9y ago

Neat little article, preaching to the choir unfortunately. I wonder if there's a single climate denier around here. Useful to send to others, though.

DanBC 9y ago

There are dozens. They come out in every climate thread.

aaron695 9y ago

I am a climate denier. Happy to agree with AGW but this is NOT what climate denial is about. This is why this article is fake. What global warming is about, not the religious babble in articles like this, is how bad is it? and how bad is dealing with it? Then as a scientist and logical person go down the best route. And the evidence to me is clear, the best route is to not deal with it. Hence we once again start a religious war in threads like this. How to deal with these religious wars is unclear, but if you want to really help the world, solving this would be an amazing start. A large part of the population will always be religious, be it about the gods or GMO's or Global warming. How does one solve these issues? This is really where it's at.

pale-hands 9y ago
If you are "Happy to agree with AGW", you're not a climate denier, or even a climate skeptic as Scientific American would define it. (Unless, of course, your agreement with AGW is not really that). The article is about consilience of evidence, and doesn't even touch on mitigation, so it's hard to guess what you are reacting against. Your characterisation of the controversy as religious is interesting to me. We would both probably apply the adjective "religious" to firmly held beliefs that are unsupported by the facts, but would disagree as to the facts. And we would both not apply the "religious" adjective to ourselves.
- tannerwj 9y ago
  Unfortunately, I can totally relate to him. I have been called a climate denier just for disagreeing with a proposed solution. Climate change and its proposed solutions (for one the Paris Accord) have almost a religious following that are quick to attack anyone who disagree with them on even the smallest point. It is no way to solve problems.
  - pale-hands 9y ago
    Aaron695 described himself as a "climate denier", though, which is unusual. The Paris Accord, by itself, cannot do nearly enough to avert disaster, but it was the best that could be done diplomatically (especially in the light of US domestic politics). As such, it's better than nothing. No question that the whole subject has become very toxic and politically polarised, and that people have hair-trigger responses that sometimes misfire.
  - polotics 9y ago
    I call strawman-citation needed. Could you link to any post on this site where you observed this religious following?
polotics 9y ago
On HN you really get the hard edge of denialism, probably well financed shills, very interesting. Clearly the massive non-sequitur in the statement below is super interesting obfuscation: the article states that global warming is real, so how can you call it fake if you agree that it is real? (quote) "Happy to agree with AGW but this is NOT what climate denial is about. This is why this article is fake." (end quote) As I understand it this sleight of words is used just for the confusion, trying to get readers into fast-thinking less rational mode. Then the money shot, delivered with no analysis, no model, and crucially, no evidence: (quote) "And the evidence to me is clear, the best route is to not deal with it." (end quote) We are not talking about climate warming, but its direct consequence which is climate disruption, a few degrees warming leading to much higher likelihood of extreme weather events, this has not been news since at least Katrina and the california drought & fires. Not dealing with it is not an option when your house is burning. Implictly there is the hope that somebody else's house or lake gets hit, but for the US it's no dice, there are massive fragilities everywhere. (Jersey, NYC subway, ...) Carbon gets gigantic subsidies, not just direct but also in military budgetting for oil supply protection. Please go to www.realclimate.org
- pale-hands 9y ago
  You addressed the substance (or not) of aaron695's post far better than I did, but I'm prepared to believe that the post is sincere, absent any actual evidence of shilling. (See also, Trump's repeated insinuation that protestors must be paid). I don't doubt that there is a shit-ton of political trolling, which degrades discourse even if it does not persuade.