4 ms·

How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches

19 points by gk1 9y ago

fleitz 9y ago
Google prioritizes tested theories over those that confirm the null hypothesis / science by consensus?
1337biz 9y ago
Answer: They are buying Google ads I still have questions with NYT's perspective on that issue. Are they seriously expecting Google to evaluate the scientific proof behind every ad that is placed? Those website do nothing illegal, most probably don't even lie but just present very selective facts. Or is that just about the next level of trial by internet and the NYT is already scouting for next potential victims they can target?
- username223 9y ago
  > Answer: They are buying Google ads So Google search results are just ads? I can't reproduce the NYT's results, though looking at Google search results for the first time in awhile, I'm surprised at just how trashy they've become.
  - melling 9y ago
    A couple years ago I created a little Wordpress site so I could write my replies to the same questions that deniers always bring up: https://2cco2.wordpress.com https://2cco2.wordpress.com What the Internet really needs is a community version of this. Perhaps on Github?
- vixen99 9y ago
  Some people stand to profit from saying the climate is responding to anthropogenic warming to a worrying (adjust the adjective) degree and others will profit from discounting (same adjustment applies) such concerns. It's therefore (knowing human nature) likely that some members of both groups will present 'very selective facts'. It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group. Alternatively you have good reasons to argue for a high climate sensitivity value rather than a low one. Do you? Discussion totally dissociated from CS consideration is mere rhetoric. Here's a recent summary: http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7BVQeLDP.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensit...
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group And do you say that after linking to a blog that has a really obvious agenda? Yap, entries like [0] are really unbiased, isn't? [0] http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emancipating-itself-as-trump-accomplishes/#sthash.p5fl5T6W.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emanci...
  - 1337biz 9y ago
    I agree fully with your premise that both sides are driven by interest groups. Personally I am pondering in that context in how far science is really helping the argument on both sides. The suggestion that there are absolute cause and effects in something as complicated as climate is just for most people (including myself) not beliveable. They watch the weather forcast and see every day that all the science in the world is not even able to predict next week's weather. In other areas are confronted every day with conflicting studies and recommendations. I am sure trust in science and scientists' interpretstion of things is going is more and more decreasing.
aaronchall 9y ago
I used to be an agnostic on the subject of global warming, but I think it's reasonable to believe there's an upward trend. I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still exaggerating projections and the efficacy of whatever flavor of the month solution they're currently pushing. Here's what should be happening instead: I'd like to see activists making actual proposals with realistic assessments of the costs and benefits so that we can make rational judgments with respect to public resources that we're being asked to allocate to their causes. Is that too much to ask? Regardless, mocking conservatives and moderates who want a more careful accounting from the hysterical activists is what caused me to flag this post.
- insickness 9y ago
  It's ridiculous that people who question anything about climate change are called 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers. There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed. What percentage of climate change is caused by humans? How much can human beings do to reverse the climate? What is the cost to benefit ratio of those changes? There is too much variability in the answers to these questions to shame anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy.
  - throwaway2018a 9y ago
    > 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers The number of people who will be killed by climate change in the next hundred years because we didn't act is going to make the holocaust pale in comparison. Climate change related deaths are expected to be just a little under one holocaust a year by 2030. So I think that is fair comparison. The cost benefit ratio is incalculable. But if you were to calculate costs: - Renewable are generally cheaper than alternatives - Renewable create far more jobs than would be lost - Cleaner air is undeniably linked to healthier people - And we save one hollocost a year I used to be agnostic as the other poster puts it too but this is ridiculous. The steps we need to take not only will definitely help the climate but also help the economy and health. It is a win-win-win even if the models are completely wrong, which I doubt. I think the turning point for me is when I learned sea levels are rising FASTER than the models predicted. Are you going to wait until the water is at your door to believe it is real?
mixmastamyk 9y ago
I’ve not seen it mentioned before but the anti-climate change platform feels just like the tobacco, margarine, and sugar misinformation campaigns of yesteryear. Would not be surprised is students of those were involved somehow.

19 points by gk1 9y ago

Google prioritizes tested theories over those that confirm the null hypothesis / science by consensus?

Answer: They are buying Google ads I still have questions with NYT's perspective on that issue. Are they seriously expecting Google to evaluate the scientific proof behind every ad that is placed? Those website do nothing illegal, most probably don't even lie but just present very selective facts. Or is that just about the next level of trial by internet and the NYT is already scouting for next potential victims they can target?

username223 9y ago
> Answer: They are buying Google ads So Google search results are just ads? I can't reproduce the NYT's results, though looking at Google search results for the first time in awhile, I'm surprised at just how trashy they've become.
- melling 9y ago
  A couple years ago I created a little Wordpress site so I could write my replies to the same questions that deniers always bring up: https://2cco2.wordpress.com https://2cco2.wordpress.com What the Internet really needs is a community version of this. Perhaps on Github?
vixen99 9y ago
Some people stand to profit from saying the climate is responding to anthropogenic warming to a worrying (adjust the adjective) degree and others will profit from discounting (same adjustment applies) such concerns. It's therefore (knowing human nature) likely that some members of both groups will present 'very selective facts'. It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group. Alternatively you have good reasons to argue for a high climate sensitivity value rather than a low one. Do you? Discussion totally dissociated from CS consideration is mere rhetoric. Here's a recent summary: http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7BVQeLDP.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensit...
- Oletros 9y ago
  > It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group And do you say that after linking to a blog that has a really obvious agenda? Yap, entries like [0] are really unbiased, isn't? [0] http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emancipating-itself-as-trump-accomplishes/#sthash.p5fl5T6W.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emanci...
- 1337biz 9y ago
  I agree fully with your premise that both sides are driven by interest groups. Personally I am pondering in that context in how far science is really helping the argument on both sides. The suggestion that there are absolute cause and effects in something as complicated as climate is just for most people (including myself) not beliveable. They watch the weather forcast and see every day that all the science in the world is not even able to predict next week's weather. In other areas are confronted every day with conflicting studies and recommendations. I am sure trust in science and scientists' interpretstion of things is going is more and more decreasing.

aaronchall 9y ago

I used to be an agnostic on the subject of global warming, but I think it's reasonable to believe there's an upward trend. I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still exaggerating projections and the efficacy of whatever flavor of the month solution they're currently pushing. Here's what should be happening instead: I'd like to see activists making actual proposals with realistic assessments of the costs and benefits so that we can make rational judgments with respect to public resources that we're being asked to allocate to their causes. Is that too much to ask? Regardless, mocking conservatives and moderates who want a more careful accounting from the hysterical activists is what caused me to flag this post.

insickness 9y ago
It's ridiculous that people who question anything about climate change are called 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers. There are reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not make the predictions claimed. What percentage of climate change is caused by humans? How much can human beings do to reverse the climate? What is the cost to benefit ratio of those changes? There is too much variability in the answers to these questions to shame anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy.
- throwaway2018a 9y ago
  > 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers The number of people who will be killed by climate change in the next hundred years because we didn't act is going to make the holocaust pale in comparison. Climate change related deaths are expected to be just a little under one holocaust a year by 2030. So I think that is fair comparison. The cost benefit ratio is incalculable. But if you were to calculate costs: - Renewable are generally cheaper than alternatives - Renewable create far more jobs than would be lost - Cleaner air is undeniably linked to healthier people - And we save one hollocost a year I used to be agnostic as the other poster puts it too but this is ridiculous. The steps we need to take not only will definitely help the climate but also help the economy and health. It is a win-win-win even if the models are completely wrong, which I doubt. I think the turning point for me is when I learned sea levels are rising FASTER than the models predicted. Are you going to wait until the water is at your door to believe it is real?

mixmastamyk 9y ago

I’ve not seen it mentioned before but the anti-climate change platform feels just like the tobacco, margarine, and sugar misinformation campaigns of yesteryear. Would not be surprised is students of those were involved somehow.