4 ms·

Actually it does not. Converting an scientific issue into a political (or better say an emotional) one is only needed if the science does not support your side

by pintxo 7y ago

Actually it does not. Converting an scientific issue into a political (or better say an emotional) one is only needed if the science does not support your side. Therefore it makes sense for deniers to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. So why should the "green energy industry" move the debate from a science driven (which pretty much supports their argument) to a political one?

justsubmit 7y ago
You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective: Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that. There are none so blind...
- pintxo 7y ago
  Only under the premise that there is no large scientific consensus.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that? Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
    - pintxo 7y ago
      From [1]: > And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists. So 10! climate scientists argue against climate change? Still looks like there is an overwhelming support for it in science. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...
      - justsubmit 7y ago
        Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient. 1. Invent a pseudoscientific field. 2. Make normative, political claims from said field. 3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ > To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on. To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it. So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.

by pintxo 7y ago

justsubmit 7y ago

You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective: Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that. There are none so blind...

pintxo 7y ago
Only under the premise that there is no large scientific consensus.
- justsubmit 7y ago
  Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that? Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    From [1]: > And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists. So 10! climate scientists argue against climate change? Still looks like there is an overwhelming support for it in science. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...
    - justsubmit 7y ago
      Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient. 1. Invent a pseudoscientific field. 2. Make normative, political claims from said field. 3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ > To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on. To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it. So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.