3 ms·

Why do you think this will be flagged? I hardly ever see comments disregarding climate change here.

by mrep 7y ago

SiempreViernes 7y ago
There was anoter bbc article about the need for political action, that managed to stay up for about 2 hours, getting plenty of “well, we don’t need to worry about it now, the market will sort it” comments before being flagged off.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
There’s one up now, posted a minute after yours.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Lots of climate stories get flagged off the front page, and rapidly. Or trigger HN spam flags from the succession of low karma deniers with "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" zero substance comments. If Europe is wider awake they seem to have more chance of sticking around a while... Which is a bit sad as it's one of the few places online I'd have hoped for a more engaging and productive discussion of the topic.
- dang 7y ago
  It's one of the most-discussed topics on HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=climate%20comments%3E20 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story... https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=warming%20comments%3E10 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story... Everyone's favorite topic feels under-discussed because frontpage space is the scarcest resource here. Probably even Rust hackers feel that way. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20scarce https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Sure, there's a decent number that do survive, but there's also a lot that attract interest, decent discussion then bomb fast from either getting flagged or excess downvotes/comments - however your algo decides to derank. Which is not to say I expect them all to stick... :)
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > Or trigger HN spam flags from the succession of low karma deniers with "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" zero substance comments. > Which is a bit sad as it's one of the few places online I'd have hoped for a more engaging and productive discussion of the topic. How can you have a productive discussion when you immediately dismiss anyone who questions things as "low karma deniers"? Any meaningful discussion should start with addressing: "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" since they're very relevant points.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Except they're not relevant. I could understand someone in the 1980s and 1990s raising those in good faith, through poor understanding, before high general awareness. Just as I could understand someone raising points around fatty food and obesity in the same era. At least climate, unlike fat in food, hasn't had an entire irrelevant and possibly harmful industry spring up based on that FUD. Today, it isn't meaningful, it's just a distraction tactic to dilute and spread doubt. The most charitable interpretation of someone raising such points as today is they have got their terrible "understanding" from the most biased, disingenuous sources created and promoted by those with an agenda. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I mean they’re common sense no? If they are so obviously false or irrelevant then maybe you could address them. Calling people who come at this rationally “disingenuous” does nothing to further your argument. Every time an article headline states "Hottest Temperature Ever!" I just round file it. The earth was a molten ball of lava at some point, it's obviously hyperbole meant to prey on people's fears. What they maybe mean is "Hottest Temperature In The 100 Years We've Been Keeping Accurate Records". That's an article I would read. Humans have lived through multiple ice ages. The climate changes; regularly and drastically. Humans have always survived and I'm sure we'll continue to survive. I don't see anyone fretting about building an anti-asteroid system or talking about super volcanoes (both of which pose a much larger existential threat to humanity). I don't know how old you are, but for my entire life (and for a long time before that) people have been saying that the world is going to end for one reason or another. At some point you learn the signs of hype and just tune them out. Dishonest headlines and arguments are the #1 sign.

Why do you think this will be flagged? I hardly ever see comments disregarding climate change here.

by mrep 7y ago

Why do you think this will be flagged? I hardly ever see comments disregarding climate change here.

There was anoter bbc article about the need for political action, that managed to stay up for about 2 hours, getting plenty of “well, we don’t need to worry about it now, the market will sort it” comments before being flagged off.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

There’s one up now, posted a minute after yours.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Lots of climate stories get flagged off the front page, and rapidly. Or trigger HN spam flags from the succession of low karma deniers with "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" zero substance comments. If Europe is wider awake they seem to have more chance of sticking around a while... Which is a bit sad as it's one of the few places online I'd have hoped for a more engaging and productive discussion of the topic.

dang 7y ago
It's one of the most-discussed topics on HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=climate%20comments%3E20 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story... https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=warming%20comments%3E10 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story... Everyone's favorite topic feels under-discussed because frontpage space is the scarcest resource here. Probably even Rust hackers feel that way. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20scarce https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Sure, there's a decent number that do survive, but there's also a lot that attract interest, decent discussion then bomb fast from either getting flagged or excess downvotes/comments - however your algo decides to derank. Which is not to say I expect them all to stick... :)
malvosenior 7y ago
> Or trigger HN spam flags from the succession of low karma deniers with "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" zero substance comments. > Which is a bit sad as it's one of the few places online I'd have hoped for a more engaging and productive discussion of the topic. How can you have a productive discussion when you immediately dismiss anyone who questions things as "low karma deniers"? Any meaningful discussion should start with addressing: "climate has always been changing", "well we don't have accurate temperature records back to the yyy age" since they're very relevant points.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Except they're not relevant. I could understand someone in the 1980s and 1990s raising those in good faith, through poor understanding, before high general awareness. Just as I could understand someone raising points around fatty food and obesity in the same era. At least climate, unlike fat in food, hasn't had an entire irrelevant and possibly harmful industry spring up based on that FUD. Today, it isn't meaningful, it's just a distraction tactic to dilute and spread doubt. The most charitable interpretation of someone raising such points as today is they have got their terrible "understanding" from the most biased, disingenuous sources created and promoted by those with an agenda. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I mean they’re common sense no? If they are so obviously false or irrelevant then maybe you could address them. Calling people who come at this rationally “disingenuous” does nothing to further your argument. Every time an article headline states "Hottest Temperature Ever!" I just round file it. The earth was a molten ball of lava at some point, it's obviously hyperbole meant to prey on people's fears. What they maybe mean is "Hottest Temperature In The 100 Years We've Been Keeping Accurate Records". That's an article I would read. Humans have lived through multiple ice ages. The climate changes; regularly and drastically. Humans have always survived and I'm sure we'll continue to survive. I don't see anyone fretting about building an anti-asteroid system or talking about super volcanoes (both of which pose a much larger existential threat to humanity). I don't know how old you are, but for my entire life (and for a long time before that) people have been saying that the world is going to end for one reason or another. At some point you learn the signs of hype and just tune them out. Dishonest headlines and arguments are the #1 sign.