Hacker News Reader

Comment by FrancoDiaz | Hacker News Reader

I am what you would call a "denier". By the way, when you people use that term, it makes you sound very cultish, especially the calls from leftists for the death penalty for deniers.

I actually don't "deny" that there could be anthropogenic climate change, but until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs (economic, freedom), and also when the left stops "denying" that it fits conveniently into their ideological economic model, then there can be no honest conversation.

There are plenty of things to discuss within the broad camp of "accepts that climate change is real and a potential problem." For example, the severity, the cause of individual events, the best responses, the potential dangers in the future, etc.

So you really don't want to discuss it? It's either your reality or the highway, as your other respondent alluded to.

View on HN

Perhaps if you didn't equate "denier=the right", "non-denier=the left" and didn't make swiping statements like "until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs", and refer to "you people", you might find that others might be willing to discuss.

I don't understand. Do I understand correctly that you accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening? If so, then you're not a denier and none of this applies to you.

You didn't me understand correctly.

Could you elaborate? Specifically, what did you mean by "I actually don't 'deny' that there could be anthropogenic climate change" if not that?

I'm not absolute in saying that there isn't anthropogenic climate change. I'm saying politics are a big factor in the whole debate.

Of course they are. It's a scientific question that has somehow turned into a political debate.

But that's separate from the question of your position on the thing itself. Do you think anthropogenic climate change is a thing, or not? If not, then you're kind of dancing around it. If so, then I don't get why you're so upset.

I thought I made my position pretty clear on the last post. When someone is presented with a theory, do you expect them to think it's a thing or not? I don't believe it's a binary option. Effects of global warming aren't even close to consensus even among believers.

I wasn't upset, but was pointing out that there's many things that you believe in that other people don't. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.

For example, I believe that there's a huge political motivation on the left to believe in global warming that is separate from the science. I'm assuming you disagree. That's fine. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours.

There is no consensus of agreement, so I'm not sure why you would assume that there would be on HN

I was just thinkng of the butterfly effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

So the question isn't whether anthropogenic climate change is a thing. The questions are to what extent are the effects? What are the costs and efficacy of combating climate change?

>but until the left wants to have an honest debate on the costs (economic, freedom)

Twenty years ago when this debate was starting, the right said the left want to destroy the economy by forcing everyone to use renewable energy that costs twenty times what fossil fuel energy does.

Nowadays, renewable energy is as cheap as fossil fuels for many applications, and rapidly getting cheaper, and so it is being voluntarily adopted all over the world. But the right continues to assume it is just as expensive as it was twenty years ago. In fact, Donald Trump has said he loves solar, but its problem is it is very, very expensive.

You want honesty? Scientific discovery doesn't care about economic models. The chemical properties of CO2 are not affected by politics. You don't get to vote on thermodynamics. There is no debate regarding the existence of AGW, except outside of science.

What is this leftist ideological economic model you speak of?

right... nothing valid to say...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com