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

81–90 of 247 posts

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#81

Post by dagss »

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.

It is not as clear cut as that at all. Wikipedia has a page on Denial..

What is "established" is part of the debate too and obviously it is in some deniers interest to instead label themself sceptic. Apparently there has been a debate about this:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#82

Post by vkou »

educationdata wrote: post #80
Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

[flagged]

> How about the left-wing's deny of gender difference?

Because of the impact of getting this wrong.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#83

Post by Svip »

educationdata wrote: post #80
Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

[flagged]

Because climate change is the most serious problem facing humanity. It doesn't really matter what gender people are, if there is not a livable planet for us.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#84

Post by scrollaway »

briandear wrote: post #67
Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at a…

> I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point

The point that taking facts, turning them into opinions and claiming yours is as correct as everybody else's is not welcome on this forum?

Imagine that.

PS: You know what doesn't affect me, my family, my country, or really most people on this planet? The existence of Jesus Christ. Debate away. Get the hell off climate change, leave that topic to those who want to have their kids grow up.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#85

Post by nemothekid »

educationdata wrote: post #80
Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

[flagged]

>nobody has experienced temperature change from 1990 to 2018!

What? Was this post created by a human?

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#86

Post by MrBingley »

briandear wrote: post #67
Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at a…

> I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.

Which is somewhat ironic, considering that in both cases there is near unanimous agreement among the experts (climate scientists and biblical scholars respectively) that both exist.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#88

Post by orf »

glhaynes wrote: post #73
briandear wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at a…

"(remember when it was called global warming?)" I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]

It's a common argument deniers make to try and spread FUD.

> They used to call it global warming, then they rebranded it to (the more accurate) climate change because their narrative was coming apart/everything is fine/elitist climate scientists trying to get money. If they can't even get their story straight why should we believe them??

> This message was brought to you by the 'Sensible Patriotic Americans Against Climate Change Nonsense' (funded by Exxon).

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#89

Post by guscost »

luckydata wrote: post #38
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…

Because their stupidity is going to kill us all. I'm very vitriolic against people that are trying to kill me and my family, I can't help it.

From my perspective, an authority with power to regulate the gas that all animals exhale seems like a more serious threat to myself and to those I care about. I can understand how you might disagree though.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#90

Post by wolco »

Ivoirians wrote: post #43

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).…

This is a political issue now. Debates around gravity would be less polarizing. We even have a term for those who do not agree (climate change deniers) which has roots in the holocaust deniers label which is very negative. Somewhere along the way science stopped, funding increased to fund ever more scary climate models. The solutions given were more of a wealth spreading scheme where poorer countries like china responsible for more green houses gases than the eu were allowed to continue without penalty. Richer countries could buy credits somehow the money would reduce greenhouse gases somewhere poorer.

If we stuck to science most would be on board. When Al Gore delivered the message the message changed.

The medium is the message.

Post reply on HN