Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

tamino.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 247 posts

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#41

Post by dirkgently »

freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

To generalize, "why such vitriol again science-deniers?".

It's one thing to talk to Bible thumpers, but science-deniers are not Bible thumpers. They use pseudo science to discredit science. They gave an agenda against science. And in the USA, they tend to align well with alt-right.

They deserve all the vitriol they get, and some more.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#42

Post by freedomben »

IlGrigiore wrote: post #37
freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?

That's a decent point. I do find it unfortunate that the term has become polarized because it is a convenient and descriptive categorical term.

I don't have any better solutions, other than maybe something more specific that tries to understand the position of the person rather than sticking them in a large group identity with which they likely don't conform to entirely.

I generally like to ask people how they identify themselves, and then call them that. If they identify as climate deniers, then the term is completely fine.

We find it terribly rude to label somebody with pronouns like "he" or "she" when they prefer something else. I don't see this as much different.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#43

Post by Ivoirians »

It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever).

And they're winning, considering only half of Republicans believe climate change is even happening, let alone that it's manmade. This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#44

Post by mikelward »

IlGrigiore wrote: post #37
freedomben wrote: post #32

Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…

Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?

Climate sceptic is the established term.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#45

Post by satellitec4t »

oh_sigh wrote: post #6

What part do climate change deniers deny? Is it that the mean global temperature is going up, or the idea that it is going up because of human activities? I thought it was the latter.

Whatever is convenient in the moment so that they can continue doing nothing and selling oil or sticking it to those educated elites who don't know nothing about the real world.

They'll just keep moving the goalposts until it's too late to do anything about it (which was like twenty years ago anyway)

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#47

Post by DmenshunlAnlsis »

mikelward wrote: post #44
IlGrigiore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?

Climate sceptic is the established term.

They’re not skeptical though, that word already means something. They’re in denial, hence denier. “Climate skeptic” is right up there with “pro life” for cynical lack of sincerity. Frankly “climate denier” is already the respectful term, with the more common appellations being some combination of an adjective and “idiot”. Given that a minority of ideologues, religious zealots, and moneyed interests are going to be the death of us all, I’m finding it hard to care about feelings in this debate. If anything, less PC and more hatred might actually lead to a solution, if a messy one.

There was a time when denial of this issue was really skepticism, and a time for debate, but it was decades ago. At this point it’s like debating with tobacco companies who wanted to claim that smoking was good for you. It’s not a real debate, it’s dealing with people who are arguing in bad faith for selfish reasons at the cost of human lives. Why should ignorant, dangerous people (at best) and disingenuous people (at worst) be afforded any respect or time? Just because those people pretend (sometimes) to be scientific, skeptical, rational, or sincere doesn’t mean anyone else should be compelled to meet them on their own corrupt terms.

It’s like “debating” Creationists, and it’s a waste of time and it demeans the concept of debate. Don’t let cynical bastards drag you down because they learned how to just barely pretend to be skeptics or scientists.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#49

Post by saudioger »

sschueller wrote: post #12

Toxic chemicals in our water and air. Plastic in the ocean. Etc. Etc. These are all things that are killing us and are proven to be bad. We have to do something irregardless if climate change is mann made or not. The debate is irrelevant (at least until we get everything else cleaned up) Even climate change deniers want clean water.

Climate change deniers want THEIR water to be clean. They don't give a flying fart if yours is, or even if their neighbors' is. That's why it's so easy for them to deny climate change.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#50

Post by avip »

techsupporter wrote: post #18

> We can completely ignore the fact that over the years the average location of all the contributing stations has moved slightly northward to colder territory[.] Woah, that's not something I'd considered. Are weather stations that contribute to NOAA operated by the volunteer public, kind of like Weather Underground? Either way, that's pretty interesting that there's a distinct northward migration in at least one "dem…

Tbh that location graph is meaningless.
Post reply on HN