USA Temperature: can I sucker you? • Hacker News Board

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#141

Post by bjourne » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #109

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).…

Want convince 99% of America that Climate Change needs immediate action? Address the following points (without vitriol, deception or animosity): I'm not saying all these are ironclad facts, but this is what you're up against: Alarmists have been wrong many times in the past. Cooling. Warming. 10 foot sea rise by 1980. No, 1990. No, 2000. No 2030, for sure this time. Alarmists have been caught manipulating data, for t…

Sorry that I modded you down, but where is the cite for the claim 10 foot sea rise by XXXX year?

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#142

Post by martinpw » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #88

glhaynes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(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…

The irony is that the phrase "climate change" was actually pushed initially by a Republican advisor (Frank Luntz) as it was considered less frightening to the public than "global warming".

The other irony is that this phrase was used a lot of few years back when many were claiming there was no warming going on by cherry picking the 1998 El Nino spike as a starting point for temperature graphs. Then the argument was - there is no warming, so the alarmists have stopped using the term "global warming". Of course with recent warming this particular cherry picked argument has fallen apart, but for some reason the meme persists.

I don't think the people who use the phrase even think about what they are saying. It is just part of the Gish Gallop that gets thrown out where number of words makes up for lack of solid argument (initial post that used this phrase up above being a perfect example of this)

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#143

Post by orf » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #133

orf wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> but nothing is changing

Since 1995 Republicans have controlled both the house and senate almost exclusively[1]. Could this have something to do with it?

Also I'm not saying be a democrat, but exercise your vote for the party that doesn't encourage climate denial at all levels. And I think some of the democrat policies on climate change went above and beyond 'banning straws lol'.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_...

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#144

Post by saudioger » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #111

saudioger wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…

All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.

The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination of every sighted person.

There isn't even a single point of authority here. The determination is made by climate scientists, biologists, ecologists, etc... across multiple independent governments, allies and enemies alike.

Argument from authority is meant to avoid groupthink, but there are many many disparate groups coming to the same conclusion here while relying on entirely different sets of evidence.

If you can use argument from authority to dispute this, then you can use it to dispute any consensus ever made.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#145

Post by bibixii929 » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:42 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #111

saudioger wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…

All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.

There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith, especially those employed by think tanks and other PR organisations.

As the questions are political, you need rhetoric. As unfortunately as it may be, it should be obvious by now to everyone following politics that being "polite" is not a winning recipe in the game.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#146

Post by _-david-_ » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #109

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).…

Want convince 99% of America that Climate Change needs immediate action? Address the following points (without vitriol, deception or animosity): I'm not saying all these are ironclad facts, but this is what you're up against: Alarmists have been wrong many times in the past. Cooling. Warming. 10 foot sea rise by 1980. No, 1990. No, 2000. No 2030, for sure this time. Alarmists have been caught manipulating data, for t…

The other issue is because of these theories there is push for new regulations and (carbon) taxes. This is going to cause people to be skeptical of the information.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#147

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

DmenshunlAnlsis wrote: post #47

mikelward wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Perhaps the adjective your looking for there is “useful” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

At least that combination grants them the opportunity to be victims rather that villains

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#148

Post by mirimir » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

> The whole debate stopped being about science years ago ...

I agree. The scientific consensus is strong, and the models are robust. So the only "debate" left involves dueling PR campaigns. And the side that's funded by the fossil fuels industry has consolidated its political control. They still have no hope of winning the scientific debate, but now they can impose their agenda regardless.

Anyway, I could be upset about our situation. Maybe I would be, if I were a few decades younger, or had children and grandchildren. But I don't. So mainly I'm cynically amused. And I'm becoming more and more confident that I'll get to see some lulzy shit before I die.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#149

Post by throwaway8879 » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

saudioger wrote: post #144

mjfl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.

The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination of every sighted person. There isn't even a single point of authority here. The determination is made by climate scientists, biologists, ecologists, etc... across multiple independent governments, allies and enemies alike. Argument from authority is meant to av…

The sky isn't blue. Not always anyway. And not from everywhere.

Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

#150

Post by colllectorof » Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #129

mjfl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.

> appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy The data are publicly available and the papers relatively accessible. The dismissal isn’t because climate deniers reject the mainstream. It’s because they reject the mainstream without trying to understand it.

So, how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? Can they cite the list of publications that convinced them to give or not give you the vaccinations?

This is not how it works the real world. Saying "research is out there" is absolutely meaningless in convincing people, especially if you don't even post actual links/citations (which most people never do).