3 ms·

It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your wor

by TillE 13y ago

It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your worldview, even when there's a mountain of evidence behind it. HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.

Fomite 13y ago
Indeed - there's very little money to be made from the Intelligent Designer, so there's little to no appeal. Climate change raises the specter of regulation.
tracker1 13y ago
I don't have a problem with climate change as a science, or even something we should be concerned about. My larger issues are regarding the hysteria, and anti-corporatism that tends to go along with it. For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future. First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished? Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis? Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority? It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians. // Totally OT as it is, what are you getting at here?

by TillE 13y ago

Fomite 13y ago

Indeed - there's very little money to be made from the Intelligent Designer, so there's little to no appeal. Climate change raises the specter of regulation.

tracker1 13y ago

I don't have a problem with climate change as a science, or even something we should be concerned about. My larger issues are regarding the hysteria, and anti-corporatism that tends to go along with it. For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future. First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished? Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis? Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority? It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

>HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians. // Totally OT as it is, what are you getting at here?