4 ms·

Part of what I was trying to articulate in my comment is that I don't even know what you are accusing these people of denying. So I guess the first part to tryi

Part of what I was trying to articulate in my comment is that I don't even know what you are accusing these people of denying. So I guess the first part to trying to communicate my comment's meaning is to understand that as far as I can tell, it just comes across as a smear.

hcknwscommenter 7y ago
It is a smear because climate change denialism simply ignores that the best available science points to humans as the cause of global warming, that global warming is a huge threat, and that we need to start doing more now. Moreover, the best available science has been heavily attacked by all manner of extremely well-funded skeptics and held up. This funding to comes from 100B+ multinational corporations as well as state actors. Yes, the climate models could be wrong, but denialism in the face of the facts on the ground has reached the level that it is more likely that tiny underground monkeys on mars are beaming thoughts into our heads than that the deniers are right. Thus, those who continue to pose as "I'm just asking questions man" are either disingenous or gullible. Yes it's a smear, and deservedly so.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  I don't even know what a Climate Change Denier is. As far as I can tell it's basically anyone who questions anything about the politics, economics, science of this issue. I don't see how it's basically anything more than smear label on any non-believer, or heretic, including Nobel Prizer Winners to Pulitzer Prize Winners.
  - retsibsi 7y ago
    Can you give some examples of people being (widely) labeled climate change deniers for 'questioning anything about the politics or economics' of climate change? In its standard use the phrase refers to people holding or spreading doubt about consensus or near-consensus conclusions of climate science. It's arguably a necessary 'smear' because we've seen the same pattern play out as happened in the case of tobacco: there's a lot of money at stake, and people and organisations with a lot to lose and a lot to spend are not above spreading FUD, laundered through any scientists or 'public intellectuals' who either already hold a conveniently contrary view or are willing to be convinced by $. We'd be naive and foolish to let this happen without pointing out the pattern and calling into question the reputations of the contrarians.
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      The examples you ask for would obviously be the topic of this conversation, which you can be reminded of by reading from the start again. Other popular examples of 2019 Gallileo's might be people like Ivar Giaever or John Stossel.

hcknwscommenter 7y ago

It is a smear because climate change denialism simply ignores that the best available science points to humans as the cause of global warming, that global warming is a huge threat, and that we need to start doing more now. Moreover, the best available science has been heavily attacked by all manner of extremely well-funded skeptics and held up. This funding to comes from 100B+ multinational corporations as well as state actors. Yes, the climate models could be wrong, but denialism in the face of the facts on the ground has reached the level that it is more likely that tiny underground monkeys on mars are beaming thoughts into our heads than that the deniers are right. Thus, those who continue to pose as "I'm just asking questions man" are either disingenous or gullible. Yes it's a smear, and deservedly so.

wallace_f 7y ago
I don't even know what a Climate Change Denier is. As far as I can tell it's basically anyone who questions anything about the politics, economics, science of this issue. I don't see how it's basically anything more than smear label on any non-believer, or heretic, including Nobel Prizer Winners to Pulitzer Prize Winners.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  Can you give some examples of people being (widely) labeled climate change deniers for 'questioning anything about the politics or economics' of climate change? In its standard use the phrase refers to people holding or spreading doubt about consensus or near-consensus conclusions of climate science. It's arguably a necessary 'smear' because we've seen the same pattern play out as happened in the case of tobacco: there's a lot of money at stake, and people and organisations with a lot to lose and a lot to spend are not above spreading FUD, laundered through any scientists or 'public intellectuals' who either already hold a conveniently contrary view or are willing to be convinced by $. We'd be naive and foolish to let this happen without pointing out the pattern and calling into question the reputations of the contrarians.
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    The examples you ask for would obviously be the topic of this conversation, which you can be reminded of by reading from the start again. Other popular examples of 2019 Gallileo's might be people like Ivar Giaever or John Stossel.