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

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#131

Post by yongjik »

briandear wrote: post #104
mirimir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, most of the credentialed ones are funded by fossil fuels industries. Either directly or via shells to obscure sources. And so their objectivity is at least questionable. Second, there's support from public relations firms, also clearly funded by fossil fuels industries. It grew out of the "smokers rights" campaign in the early 80s, which was funded by the tobacco industry. And indeed, the "climate-change denia…

“Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." "Keep the pressure on." "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside" "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." From Saul Alisky…

> We talk about “science,” yet hold up an Inconvenient Truth as some sort of inflatable prophesy, as if Al Gore were Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Oh please. Inconvenient Truth was released 12 years ago. Of course the science is outdated, and in this year 2018, the only people who bring up Inconvenient Truth are those people who have no interest in what scientists have been doing in the past 12 years and instead try to refute an imagined straw man.

So much for respecting the other side of debate.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#132

Post by philipkglass »

devmunchies wrote: post #55
simplecomplex wrote: post #8

> climate change deniers Otherwise known as Republicans.

People causing climate change, otherwise known as Everybody. I’m a conservative, and vegan. I relate to most Democrats on issues of conservation, yet most of them won’t go vegan or ride public transit, etc. Democrats don’t have a moral high ground simply because they believe in climate change. I want them to make it the biggest priority of our generation through their actions.

I appreciate that you care about stabilizing the climate and have personally taken actions that contribute to that goal. I also appreciate that you're politically conservative but consider climate an important issue. I lament that the partisan polarization around this issue means we're missing ideas for solutions from half the country's population. Not every good idea about slowing/countering climate change is going to align with pre-existing strains of thought among left-leaning voters and politicians. I wish that there were more conservative politicians and voters pushing ideas for solutions that align with their backgrounds.

That said, I don't think that it's necessary or sufficient to deal with climate change by making individual lifestyle changes, without prompting from legislation. The problem of emissions is a collective action problem. Trying to fix it one person at a time is like trying to fix 20th century air quality in the Los Angeles Basin without legislation. If residents of LA supported mandatory catalytic converters on new cars, but didn't individually retrofit their own cars (or stop driving), that's not because they were un-serious about the problem. It's because they recognized that one-person-at-a-time solutions weren't going to work.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#133

Post by devmunchies »

orf wrote: post #120
devmunchies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People causing climate change, otherwise known as Everybody. I’m a conservative, and vegan. I relate to most Democrats on issues of conservation, yet most of them won’t go vegan or ride public transit, etc. Democrats don’t have a moral high ground simply because they believe in climate change. I want them to make it the biggest priority of our generation through their actions.

I'd start improving my personal moral high ground by stopping supporting the largest and most powerful group of climate deniers on the planet, funded by the companies and interests that have an interest in keeping their voters ignorant of the real issues. It's no coincidence that 69% of conservatives think climate change is not real, whereas only 5% of democrats do. But hey, that's just me.

You proved my point. Democrats think they are doing something by voting, and the politicians make the voters feel good by tossing them a bone once in a while (banning straws lol) but nothing is changing. Btw I’m not a republican and don’t vote republican. I’m a cherry picking voter.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#134

Post by cm2187 »

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…

I think part of that is a sign of our time, everything is either black or white, the good guys against the villains, "whoever disagrees with me is a bastard, no discussion, no debate, let's aim at the throat".

At the moment the right is taking the blunt of these insults. Whoever disagree with the current feminist campaign is a misogynist bigot, a traditional patriarchy advocate. Whoever disagrees with the black lives matter movement is a racist. Whoever voted for Trump is an ignorant fascist. Whoever posts a comment agreeing with something Trump does is an alt-right, russian troll. Whoever voted for Brexit is an old uneducated racist.

This is why I kind of agree with hn's policy of banning political debate. It very quickly ends up with name calling and we all have better things to do of our time.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#135

Post by orf »

educationdata wrote: post #114
orf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody has experienced temperature change from 1990 to 2018! I mean, Lisbon has just had two record breaking temperatures in two years. The average temperature across Portugal (which has a lot of temperature variance across the country) has increased by two degrees since 1900's, with the most pronounced jump between 1990 and today. Not to mention the ridiculous Summers London has been experiencing. I'd begin to que…

Again. Seriousness and stupidity are two different dimensions. Non-serious mistake can still be very stupid.

I think you replied to this comment by accident, because what you said means nothing in reply to what I said.

If I was replying in good faith, I would start by answering:

> Why is the US government preparing for climate change if it is not happening

> Why are worldwide temperatures increasing, with seemingly more and more 'once in a decade' weather phenomenons happening way more frequently?

> Why do you believe 'gender denialists' are anything even on slightly the same scale as climate denialists. What leads you to this absolutely and patently absurd conclusion? Could it be the news you consume? Who funds this news? Do they have a vested interest?

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#137

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?"

Climate deniers are either dishonest people spreading lies aimed at sacrificing the future of humanity for short-term personal gain or people following them in the destruction of humanity out of tribal allegiance.

There is literally no conceivable level of verbal vitriol that isn't far better than they deserve; the only reason for any restraint in that dimension is tactical, and even there excessive restraint i can be counterproductive; rational debate few of emotional charge may be a Vulcan ideal, but it is not, empirically, ideal in most broad human contexts. It's m it is important to be able to engage rationally in seeking the truth, but as long as that's not what everyone else does, it's going to remain less than ideal for spreadin the truth and mobilizing action based on it.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#138

Post by yason »

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.

I suppose that for the people actively denying climate change it doesn't matter, actually: it's probably more effective to deny whatever is easiest to deny at any given time.

They must only practise the denial because making changes to reduce even a potential climate change does cost money, takes away privileges and benefits gained earlier, and threatens to change their way of living. And they don't want that.

If scientists were saying that there's a slight chance for an irreversible climate change to take place in the next 30-100 years, and it would be wise to do X, Y, and Z now in order to prevent or at least lessen the change, and X, Y, and Z can be done at a minimal cost (or paid by "someone else"), and X, Y, and Z will not change their lives except to ensure they won't be affected much by the potential climate change, then I could imagine no sane person would object to X, Y, and Z nor try to deny the possibility of the climate change itself.

Those who are anti-change are just willing to bet on the possibility that nothing drastic will eventually happen in order to spare themselves from changing their lives now, against a deadlier option that would spare the lives of future generations sometimes later. To do that, they must challenge the basic premises of the climate change itself. The most effective way to do that is to pick the lowest hanging fruit in the tree of facts and concoct reasons why the facts aren't actually true. Surely, proving one thing undeniably and absolutely correct would just cause them to pick another fact.

They're not interested in why climate change is not happening in particular as long as they can keep arguing so that they can execute their agenda of not having to change anything in their lives.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#139

Post by briandear »

bjourne wrote: post #121
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…

[flagged]

We have pictures and first person accounts of the Holocaust. With human-causes global warming, we have hyperbole and predictions that fail to happen again and again. “Climate Denial” isn’t the same as Holocaust denial, it’s more akin to blasphemy. Replace “global warming” with “God” and the debate would be identical: each side tries to prove there case, but not a single person who has already picked a side will be convinced otherwise. However normally, it’s ok for people to have disagreements, but when one side attempts to impose Sharia then the debate hits a fever pitch because it affects the core of our very way of life.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#140

Post by devmunchies »

philipkglass wrote: post #132
devmunchies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People causing climate change, otherwise known as Everybody. I’m a conservative, and vegan. I relate to most Democrats on issues of conservation, yet most of them won’t go vegan or ride public transit, etc. Democrats don’t have a moral high ground simply because they believe in climate change. I want them to make it the biggest priority of our generation through their actions.

I appreciate that you care about stabilizing the climate and have personally taken actions that contribute to that goal. I also appreciate that you're politically conservative but consider climate an important issue. I lament that the partisan polarization around this issue means we're missing ideas for solutions from half the country's population. Not every good idea about slowing/countering climate change is going…

Yes but the more that people make personal changes and influence those around them so it’s on the front of our minds, the more likely we are to normalize it and get legislation passed.
Post reply on HN