3 ms·

"Name a few please." I already mentioned the Cook paper that gave us the "97% consensus" number. (Edit: for completeness sake, here is an article debunking th

"Name a few please." I already mentioned the Cook paper that gave us the "97% consensus" number. (Edit: for completeness sake, here is an article debunking the number. I haven't read it and don't know if it has any merit, it is just the first Google result. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_9... - the point stands, though, that you can find articles refuting pretty much anything you want, these days). Other than that, I didn't keep track, and I only encounter such discussions randomly every now and then. I would wager a guess, that you could find a counter reaction for most important climate science papers. Just google for them. "But some people do. They published the results. They can be verified and reproduced. It's called science. " In principle, yes, but your idea of science is highly idealized. In reality, most things are not as established and as verified as you believe them to be. Politics, egos, all sorts of things play a part. If you look back in history, there are many cases where people believed wrong things until their main representatives died, for example. Also one problem with climate science is presumably that you can not simply do experiments to verify its claims. That might a huge part of the problem. Again it mostly boils down to trust - trusting the scientists who do the verifying, trusting the institutions who employ and endorse the scientists. What you and climate doomsayers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust. That doesn't mean all science is false. But it makes it harder to find the truth.

WA 7y ago
Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to have any impact". Or you could argue that common sense is: "If you take too many shits in your environment, they'll come and bite you back sooner or later." I actually think the latter is more reasonable. It's quite tangible. Do you even realize how exchangeable your last 4 paragraphs are? See: What you and climate change deniers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view [that they are actually responsible for pollution] with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust [so they pick obscure papers, obscure individuals and claim that they are right and climate change is not a real thing, or at least not caused by humans]. > But it makes it harder to find the truth. For sure, but as an individual, you don't need to find the absolute truth. There is a very simple idea in protecting the environment: If you try to be resourceful and protect your environment, it probably has more benefits than exploiting the environment and polluting it. It simply doesn't matter whether climate science is right or not. Reducing pollution is always something worth fighting for, no matter if it has any effects on the global climate.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  I'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race". I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways. However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment. If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. The extremism is the problem.
  - WA 7y ago
    Who claims "extinction of the human race"? I don’t think this is what is claimed by serious scientists. > However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. Which one are you talking about? The simulator website that this HN thread links to actually names taxes/subsidies and renewable energies that are already around as the most effective levers to keep temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. > If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. Doesn’t explain why existing technology is still subsidized and renewable energy is not. Doesn’t explain why meat production and livestock factories are subsidized, or at least not taxed more. Eating less meat is one lever. Achievable by taxes. No side effects, no unproven technologies. For example, in Germany, meat is taxed at 7%. Why? Why not 19%? This has nothing to do with being extreme. It’s a reasonable thing to implement. So, please name the extreme things that you are afraid of.

WA 7y ago

Yes, part of it boils down to trust. Another part of it boils down to common sense. You could argue that common sense is: "Human behavior too insignificant to have any impact". Or you could argue that common sense is: "If you take too many shits in your environment, they'll come and bite you back sooner or later." I actually think the latter is more reasonable. It's quite tangible. Do you even realize how exchangeable your last 4 paragraphs are? See: What you and climate change deniers don't seem to understand is that a lot of people don't trust the institutions anymore. And rightfully so. I suspect a lot of the rage is actually about this: people who can't stand the thought that the institutions they trust can't be trusted, so fighting any challenges to their world view [that they are actually responsible for pollution] with tooth and nails. And people who feel betrayed by the institutions they used to trust [so they pick obscure papers, obscure individuals and claim that they are right and climate change is not a real thing, or at least not caused by humans]. > But it makes it harder to find the truth. For sure, but as an individual, you don't need to find the absolute truth. There is a very simple idea in protecting the environment: If you try to be resourceful and protect your environment, it probably has more benefits than exploiting the environment and polluting it. It simply doesn't matter whether climate science is right or not. Reducing pollution is always something worth fighting for, no matter if it has any effects on the global climate.

adventskalender 7y ago
I'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race". I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways. However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment. If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. The extremism is the problem.
- WA 7y ago
  Who claims "extinction of the human race"? I don’t think this is what is claimed by serious scientists. > However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. Which one are you talking about? The simulator website that this HN thread links to actually names taxes/subsidies and renewable energies that are already around as the most effective levers to keep temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. > If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure. Doesn’t explain why existing technology is still subsidized and renewable energy is not. Doesn’t explain why meat production and livestock factories are subsidized, or at least not taxed more. Eating less meat is one lever. Achievable by taxes. No side effects, no unproven technologies. For example, in Germany, meat is taxed at 7%. Why? Why not 19%? This has nothing to do with being extreme. It’s a reasonable thing to implement. So, please name the extreme things that you are afraid of.