Hacker News Reader

Comment by battlebot | Hacker News Reader

Sorry you got downvoted to hell, but certain subjects are echo chamber religion with a lot of folks. It's just how it is. I don't know how some people can be so open-minded to scientific inquiry one the one hand, but when it comes to the matter of climatology, they treat skeptics as sub-human heretics.

I tend to think it is a deep-seated personality flaw that a lot of people have but don't realize they have. They think they are more open-minded that they actually are.

I'm heartened knowing that not long ago, the majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth and anyone who dared to speak against that "settled science" was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

View on HN

There is little need to be open minded when laymen challenge educated scientists. Climate denial has all the same mechanisms as Evolution denial. It all tends to boil down to the idea "But the scientist have an against religion / american lifestyle / whatever ".

I don't deny that many progressives are less open minded than they think. But better challenge them things like anti-GMO / pro-organics ideas that don't really have much base in real science.

Unlike in the climate field, you'll find that actually lots of people who research GM / food safety will not agree with the alarmist headlines of GMO or "processed foods".

You think someone with a doctorate is a layman? We're educated people, we can form our own opinions, thanks.

If your doctorate is in a completely unrelated field, yes, you are a layman.

Oh, so I am without the ability to reason? Hardly.

Your ability to reason is not being assessed, it's your level of exposure to and understanding of the facts. Which, if you are not a climate scientist, is unlikely to be exhaustive.

And the equivalent here are the ones denying the scientific discoveries and the consensus.

The climate deniers are the ones like the Catholic Church

If that were so, then why is the majority the ones all in agreement? The people who are skeptics are few. Doesn't sound like any Catholic Church I am aware of.

The analogy is not by quantity, is by evidence.

The ones that doesn't have any evidence and deny all the experimental facts are the deniers.

The same with evolution/creationism

You can't prove a negative "we don't have any evidence" is a fallacy.

Ask yourself: Why are there no conservative voices in the climate science field? Why is only one certain type of political class so obsessed with it?

Where are the skeptical scientists of any political stripe hiding out? If these people are all in 100% agreement on this matter it tells me that much more is going on than just science because not even in math and physics do we see that level of agreement going on! It's only in this one area where there is no room to speak one's mind.

The "evidence" you speak of is all based on models. I have seen some of these, been in presentations where they were discussed, and have shaken my head in wonderment that these models are taken so seriously.

Climate science is a religion, there's no mistaking the behaviors of the people involved in it. They even want to pass laws now to limit anyone asking questions!

> Climate science is a religion, there's no mistaking the behaviors of the people involved in it.

The only religion is your view.

You're wrong in the claim that there are no conservative voices, you are wrong in your claim that consensus only exists in climate science, you are wrong in your claim about models .

> They even want to pass laws now to limit anyone asking questions!

And now you're just plainly lying.

Ps, a secret, there is a world outside of USA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com