Hacker News Reader

Comment by osense | Hacker News Reader

> controversial topics like [..] Climate Change

You're making me sad on a Friday afternoon.

Let's reformulate it then: topics where some actors have a strong incentive (monetary or emotional) to manipulate other peoples opinion.

I guess that's better :)

To expand a bit on my previous comment, the sad part is that even though we know that the topic is not really controversial scientifically, we somehow, subconsciously, refer to it as one.

Elections and all that.

Even accepting the science, there is plenty of room for controversy over what actions should be taken as a result.

Yea the true controversy isn't weather the climate is changing but rather the rate at which it is occurring and the degree to which humans should intervene to take corrective action.

And amongst the options of ways to intervene which ones to choose? Some of which are probably mutually exclusive.

All something needs to be controversial is for there to be a great deal of public disagreement about it. Climate change definitely qualifies. Unfortunately, this has just about nothing to do with factual basis, evidence, etc.

> Let's reformulate it then: topics where some actors have a strong incentive (monetary or emotional) to manipulate other peoples opinion.

So North Korea doesn't exist right? :D

You know how I know you're in Europe? Because the idea that it's controversial in the US hasn't already numbed you.

And that it's still morning here on the east coast :)

I guess he phrased it wrongly. Climate issues is not a matter of controversy but rather there are organizations trying to spread false knowledge and being able to spread that using wikipediaP2P is what OP is concerned about.

For every person who thinks global warming isn't real (for some reason), there's someone who thinks we're all going to get killed by a giant global warming-induced tsunami like in that awful movie. Climate change is controversial, because people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models) or using it as a justification for political ends (like subsidizing electric cars).

"people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models)"

Do you believe climate change is a problem and should be addressed but see others making claims beyond what the evidence supports? Or do you think climate change isn't an issue? If the former, what in particular are you thinking of? If the latter, what would it take to convince you that it's an issue?

This is an honest question. If you think the questions are unfair, or off base, or phrased poorly, I'd appreciate a comment.

Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief.

I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not school-yard topics, i'm a moron when it comes to them.

So, i play the numbers and base my understanding on a large consensus of educated people. As with the case of climate change. My coworker believes roughly the same, but unfortunately he chooses to believe "scientists who revoke climate change". He has some weird things to say, but ultimately he is doing the same thing as me.

The only thing that bothers me on this subject, is we both believe in green energy, reducing pollution, and etcetc. We have basically the same opinions on what we should be doing for the environment (reducing pollution/etc) and how important it is. Yet, he still believes it is a hoax. That part i don't understand.

Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"? I don't get that part.. hell, part of the problem with green energy was that it didn't exist because no one was making money off it.

Anyway, /rant. All i mean to say is that people on other sides of the fence likely aren't all that different than you.. well, unless you're a researcher in the field of climate change, of course.

Views don't have to be binary like "it's a hoax" or "the end is near". In between those 2 you have stuff like:

   - World may be warming but I don't believe we should act yet
   - World may be warming but I don't believe the actions we are taking make a difference
   - World is warming but I don't believe we know whether the result will be necessary a "bad thing"
   - World is warming but I don't believe we know the main cause
   - World is warming but I don't care what happens in 100 years
   - World is warming but I feel we should wait longer to see if models are correct before spending money on it
   - I feel humans overestimate their ability to model the future
   - I feel there are bigger problems we should be tackling..

...and a million other reasons. I don't believe global warming is a hoax, but a combination of reasons like the ones above makes me personally not worry or care about the issue.

Problem is while those reasons may help people sleep at night, none resemble a logical chain of reasoning. Seems more like a list justifications for apathy in spite of opposing evidence bc trying is politically untenable and denying science is easier.

Still though, in order to get people to willingly go along with restrictive environmental regulation you have to address those arguments. From a business owners perspective, the only thing they hear when discussing environmental regulation is increased production costs. You have to combat their skepticism with undeniable proof which I think has yet to be presented.

A complete logic must take into account individual preferences, not merely species survival.

The opportunity costs towards an individual to willingly shift and adapt to climate change is fairly high -- until Pigovian taxes or some such are implemented the adoption rate will be small for prevention. We're likely in the stage now where policies around adaption need to be crafted and planned.

>> part of the problem with green energy was that it didn't exist because no one was making money off it

Government subsidies and mandates can help that. If global warming is a problem and we circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy, a hoax could also circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy.

A strong incentive to believe it to be a hoax, probably kicking in all kinds of biases, is simply how scary it would be to believe it is true.

> Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"?

This is one thing I really don't understand as well. Ok, there's X amount of proof in favor of AGW. Where's the evidence for your claims it's all an elaborate, international hoax? Where's the money?

I've never gotten a good answer. Usually just deflections to how "the Earth always fluctuates" and other dismissive claims that have already been answered a thousand times had they bothered to actually research it.

It's witnessing confirmation bias.

I do not believe it's a hoax, but a lot of disciplines develop unintentional publication biases, so that sensational or apocalyptic findings are probably easier to publish.

Again, I don't think that's what's going on, but I know a lot of people who question or dismiss the median conclusions in other scientific disciplines, like economics, because of some perception of systemic bias.

Myself, I might discount health studies, but maybe I'm biased by the ones that the media chooses to report, which seem to be mostly contradictory nonsense about how chocolate and wine will make you live forever.

This is just a conjecture. If I'm right, I'm not sure if that's supposed to make you feel better (because your opponents are more rational than you thought) or worse (because complex epistemology is not likely a topic you can discuss with 60% of people).

It's often easier to convince someone that something's not a big deal than to convince them that people will solve it without government intervention.

> Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"?

The entire "Cap and Trade" market?

Me too!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com