3 ms·

If that overwhelming force of true speech worked, then why hasn't climate change denial, anti-vaccine nonsense etc been eradicated from the public sphere yet?

If that overwhelming force of true speech worked, then why hasn't climate change denial, anti-vaccine nonsense etc been eradicated from the public sphere yet? In fact, why are those movements growing?

averros 8y ago
That is because climate alarmism has been around for quite a while and anybody who has memory longer than a goldfish's can easily recollect the promised catastrophes which just didn't happen. Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines and aggressive vaccination regiments are pushed onto public not for the benefit of people but rather for the benefit of pharmas and because of evident willful misrepresentation of potential for dangerous side effects - not to mention that the very notion of forced medication strikes many people as utterly totalitarian. These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) and ever-growing number of must-do vaccines as reason for more taxation and more corporate welfare. A normal human reaction to being forced to submit is to resist. Even if force is supposed to be for the victim's own good.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  > These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) What complete and utter bullshit. Yes, not all of the predictions behind climate change have come true; science evolves and new predictions or estimations are made as advancements in technology grow. Yet we've seen many of the predictions come true and many far worse things start to pop up, including the mass decline of insects worldwide and the rapidly rising sea level.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    "we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population. Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3] I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti... [3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/ https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.
      - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
        Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
- scottishfiction 8y ago
  > Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines Would you class the measles vaccine as new? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-warns-cases-have-jumped-50 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-... In both your points regarding climate change and vaccinations, you show yourself as an apologist for anti-science causes.
makomk 8y ago
Banning "climate change denial" isn't going to magically ensure the truth wins out either. Remember that terrifying news about the oceans having absorbed 60% more heat than we thought, meaning that global warming was far worse than previously estimated? It should've been immediately suspicious - ocean temperature was something we could and did directly measure with thermometers, making the claim unlikely on its face, and their method of measurement was weird and indirect. Yet it was uncritically repeated by every major news outlet and it fell to the "denialists" to spot that they'd majorly underestimated their error bounds and could not, in fact, exclude the possibility that the straightforward and direct temperature measurements were correct. The original authors have now retracted their big claims as a result. HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 The updated and corrected version of the BBC article it linked to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
colordrops 8y ago
Where did you get this idea that free speech would solve all problems of ignorance? Perhaps you could stamp out at least public displays of climate change denial or anti-vaccine messages, but then you'd also stamp out criticism of the government and any narratives that challenge the corporate power structure, whether true or not. It's obvious that lies would be worse if free speech were restricted, as evidenced by the many countries that have restricted it. In any case, the idea of free speech is explicitly to support unpopular forms of speech. Challenges to the status quo are intentional, whether informed or ignorant.

averros 8y ago

That is because climate alarmism has been around for quite a while and anybody who has memory longer than a goldfish's can easily recollect the promised catastrophes which just didn't happen. Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines and aggressive vaccination regiments are pushed onto public not for the benefit of people but rather for the benefit of pharmas and because of evident willful misrepresentation of potential for dangerous side effects - not to mention that the very notion of forced medication strikes many people as utterly totalitarian. These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) and ever-growing number of must-do vaccines as reason for more taxation and more corporate welfare. A normal human reaction to being forced to submit is to resist. Even if force is supposed to be for the victim's own good.

fzeroracer 8y ago
> These movements are growing precisely because of persistent lying, exaggerations, and totalitarian inclinations of people who promote climate "change" (a good example of Orwellian newspeak, isn't it?) What complete and utter bullshit. Yes, not all of the predictions behind climate change have come true; science evolves and new predictions or estimations are made as advancements in technology grow. Yet we've seen many of the predictions come true and many far worse things start to pop up, including the mass decline of insects worldwide and the rapidly rising sea level.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  "we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population. Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3] I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti... [3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/ https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
scottishfiction 8y ago
> Anti-vaccine nonsense is often painted as refusal to do all vaccines (there are nuts like that but they are few) rather than not exactly groundless suspicion that SOME new vaccines Would you class the measles vaccine as new? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-warns-cases-have-jumped-50 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/15/measles-who-... In both your points regarding climate change and vaccinations, you show yourself as an apologist for anti-science causes.

makomk 8y ago

Banning "climate change denial" isn't going to magically ensure the truth wins out either. Remember that terrifying news about the oceans having absorbed 60% more heat than we thought, meaning that global warming was far worse than previously estimated? It should've been immediately suspicious - ocean temperature was something we could and did directly measure with thermometers, making the claim unlikely on its face, and their method of measurement was weird and indirect. Yet it was uncritically repeated by every major news outlet and it fell to the "denialists" to spot that they'd majorly underestimated their error bounds and could not, in fact, exclude the possibility that the straightforward and direct temperature measurements were correct. The original authors have now retracted their big claims as a result. HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 The updated and corrected version of the BBC article it linked to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067

colordrops 8y ago

Where did you get this idea that free speech would solve all problems of ignorance? Perhaps you could stamp out at least public displays of climate change denial or anti-vaccine messages, but then you'd also stamp out criticism of the government and any narratives that challenge the corporate power structure, whether true or not. It's obvious that lies would be worse if free speech were restricted, as evidenced by the many countries that have restricted it. In any case, the idea of free speech is explicitly to support unpopular forms of speech. Challenges to the status quo are intentional, whether informed or ignorant.