4 ms·

As a society we are split roughly 50/50 on who is stupid and wrong, so this really just means “silence those who disagree with me.” Anecdotally, the hn communi

by User23 7y ago

As a society we are split roughly 50/50 on who is stupid and wrong, so this really just means “silence those who disagree with me.” Anecdotally, the hn community does have an obvious majority on most issues, including this one, but is still good about allowing dissenting opinions to be heard, because it is necessary for the mission of satisfying intellectual curiosity.

FussyZeus 7y ago
If you don't understand or believe climate science at this point, it can no longer be written off as being uninformed. You are purposefully remaining ignorant and should be deemed unqualified to hold public office. There has to come a point where a consensus is so solid that continuing to play devils advocate is a disqualifying act. We know the planet is changing, and we know we are doing it. This is no longer a subject to be debated, end of.
grecy 7y ago
At this point I think it's well understood that >90% of scientists and experts agree that climate change is a real thing and going to be a severe problem. It's not about "Those who disagree with me" it's "Those who disagree with widely accepted facts." and are causing real harm by doing so.
- rhino369 7y ago
  That's a good reason to believe in climate change (and I think its even well north of 90%). But that isn't a reason to create climate blasphemy laws. Because the scientists could easily be wrong about a lot of it. History is littered with superseded theories in science. I went to a presentation of a tenured climate scientist from a good school, who gave a somewhat skeptical presentation on climate change. He didn't dispute that global warming is real or is man-made. He just thought the postive feedback loops were a lot stronger than IPCC concesuss estimated. But other professors from non-science disciplines came and read him the riot act during the Q/A portion. Being challenged is good. But some of the questions strongly implied he shouldn't publish anything challenging the status quo. That's bad.
  - grecy 7y ago
    Sure, we need to present both sides of the story. So >90% of coverage should be about what >90% of people think, and <10% of coverage should be what <10% of people think. Let's make it proportional.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    Thomas Sowell, wrote a great book in 1995 about the phenomenon you describe. The Vision of the Anointed lays out this problematic tendency. It was quite prevalent 100 years ago as anxiety arose about the industrial revolution (radio, telephone, automobile), and labor moved from the farm (14hr days during half of the year) to the factory. “Yet a polemical tactic has developed which enables virtually any general statement, however true, to be flatly denied, simply because it is not 100 percent true in all circumstances...Even in the days of Stalin, to make a distinction between the Communist world and the free world was to invite sarcastic dismissals of this distinction, based upon particular inadequacies, injustices, or restrictions found in “the so-called ‘free world,’ ” as the intelligentsia often characterized it, which kept it from being 100 percent free, democratic, and just.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed
- grandridge 7y ago
  Cite the science supporting your first line. You are just regurgitating platitudes. And if the 10% are good enough to be lumped into your sample size, why is their opinion not valid?
munk-a 7y ago
Our society of popularity unfortunately means that it's not just "allowing dissenting opinions" but 'thought leaders' end up getting an outsized amount of attention. Some celebrities are smart - some have degrees in neuroscience... but I really don't care to hold their opinion over anyone else's.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by User23 7y ago

FussyZeus 7y ago

If you don't understand or believe climate science at this point, it can no longer be written off as being uninformed. You are purposefully remaining ignorant and should be deemed unqualified to hold public office. There has to come a point where a consensus is so solid that continuing to play devils advocate is a disqualifying act. We know the planet is changing, and we know we are doing it. This is no longer a subject to be debated, end of.

grecy 7y ago

At this point I think it's well understood that >90% of scientists and experts agree that climate change is a real thing and going to be a severe problem. It's not about "Those who disagree with me" it's "Those who disagree with widely accepted facts." and are causing real harm by doing so.

rhino369 7y ago
That's a good reason to believe in climate change (and I think its even well north of 90%). But that isn't a reason to create climate blasphemy laws. Because the scientists could easily be wrong about a lot of it. History is littered with superseded theories in science. I went to a presentation of a tenured climate scientist from a good school, who gave a somewhat skeptical presentation on climate change. He didn't dispute that global warming is real or is man-made. He just thought the postive feedback loops were a lot stronger than IPCC concesuss estimated. But other professors from non-science disciplines came and read him the riot act during the Q/A portion. Being challenged is good. But some of the questions strongly implied he shouldn't publish anything challenging the status quo. That's bad.
- grecy 7y ago
  Sure, we need to present both sides of the story. So >90% of coverage should be about what >90% of people think, and <10% of coverage should be what <10% of people think. Let's make it proportional.
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  Thomas Sowell, wrote a great book in 1995 about the phenomenon you describe. The Vision of the Anointed lays out this problematic tendency. It was quite prevalent 100 years ago as anxiety arose about the industrial revolution (radio, telephone, automobile), and labor moved from the farm (14hr days during half of the year) to the factory. “Yet a polemical tactic has developed which enables virtually any general statement, however true, to be flatly denied, simply because it is not 100 percent true in all circumstances...Even in the days of Stalin, to make a distinction between the Communist world and the free world was to invite sarcastic dismissals of this distinction, based upon particular inadequacies, injustices, or restrictions found in “the so-called ‘free world,’ ” as the intelligentsia often characterized it, which kept it from being 100 percent free, democratic, and just.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed
grandridge 7y ago
Cite the science supporting your first line. You are just regurgitating platitudes. And if the 10% are good enough to be lumped into your sample size, why is their opinion not valid?

munk-a 7y ago

Our society of popularity unfortunately means that it's not just "allowing dissenting opinions" but 'thought leaders' end up getting an outsized amount of attention. Some celebrities are smart - some have degrees in neuroscience... but I really don't care to hold their opinion over anyone else's.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]