Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ivoirians | Hacker News Reader

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).

And they're winning, considering only half of Republicans believe climate change is even happening, let alone that it's manmade. This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue.

View on HN

> This was probably the stupidest possible problem for the American political machine to make a wedge issue

Read it as an issue that unites middle American industrialists and rural anti-elitists and the politics make sense.

This is a political issue now. Debates around gravity would be less polarizing. We even have a term for those who do not agree (climate change deniers) which has roots in the holocaust deniers label which is very negative. Somewhere along the way science stopped, funding increased to fund ever more scary climate models. The solutions given were more of a wealth spreading scheme where poorer countries like china responsible for more green houses gases than the eu were allowed to continue without penalty. Richer countries could buy credits somehow the money would reduce greenhouse gases somewhere poorer.

If we stuck to science most would be on board. When Al Gore delivered the message the message changed.

The medium is the message.

A fair question: has the climate alarmist side not cherry picked or even used fraudulent data to suit their cause as well? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e...

Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at all, we get labeled “deniers” or otherwise ostracized. That’s pretty unique in science, usually skepticism is considered a healthy part of the scientific process — unless it’s concerning a topic that has substantial political implications.

Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate. Another time we had “settled science” with so much politicization was when Eugenics was being advocated.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-da...

I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.

This whole thing makes me sad. There shouldn’t be any political overtones at all. The science behind climate change is relatively straightforward (greenhouse effect is real, humans dump mountains of CO2 into the atmosphere constantly) and the whole thing just makes sense to reasonable, intelligent people once they have the knowledge to consider it thoughtfully.

That being said, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it at this point. Unless we find a way to stop crisscrossing the oceans in quarter-mile-long, bunker-sludge-burning cargo ships and flying jets all over the place.

> I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point

The point that taking facts, turning them into opinions and claiming yours is as correct as everybody else's is not welcome on this forum?

Imagine that.

PS: You know what doesn't affect me, my family, my country, or really most people on this planet? The existence of Jesus Christ. Debate away. Get the hell off climate change, leave that topic to those who want to have their kids grow up.

> Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,”

Yeah, what if we make a better, cleaner and more sustainable society by accident? How terrible would that be.

"(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 Climate Change Nonsense' (funded by Exxon).

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)

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".

Academic publications were using the phrase "climate change" to discuss the warming effects well before Frank Luntz. He may have been important to putting that phrase in front of the general public, but "climate change" isn't a euphemism invented by PR hacks. The foremost summary assessments are assembled by the IPCC -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose first report came out in 1990.

Here are publications from 1980 and 1970 also using the phrase to discuss warming phenomena.

"On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting From an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere", Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, January 1980

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%28198...

"Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 1970

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283289/?page=1

I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that the phrase was deliberately pushed out into the wider public discourse for specific political motivations, and it is ironic that this phrase is now being used by those same political forces to cast aspersions on scientists.

It appears that I was trying to correct a misconception you do not actually hold. I've seen apparently well meaning people claim that "global warming" was rebranded "climate change" by Frank Luntz to make it sound less scary, while both terms have been in widespread use among scientists since before the issue became widely known among the public.

Yes, but more to the point, they are not synonymous except in very recent history. Theories of climate change were needed to explain evidence of the Ice Age long before anyone thought that warming was a concern, back in the early 19th Century. The evidence that climate could change was also generally distinct from the evidence which established that CO2 could change the climate. Global warming is a subset or result of climate change.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Maybe it's just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon but I feel like I'm seeing the exact phrase "remember when it was called global warming?" a lot lately and I'm having trouble accepting that we're all being subjected to this stupid ploy again. Obviously I shouldn't have such trouble at this point, but there you go.

Most likely it is meant to imply that scientists have retreated from saying "global warming" exists. This is of course false, and that's why it's a dogwhistle and not said directly.

> I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.

Which is somewhat ironic, considering that in both cases there is near unanimous agreement among the experts (climate scientists and biblical scholars respectively) that both exist.

> Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate.

The problem is that the right in the US is mostly denying the problem even exists, so of course all the economic proposals come from the left in this country. This is entirely self inflicted, and is not the case in other countries, where right of center parties mostly accept the reality of AGW and to some extent put in place market-based policies to address it.

I think the only way this works out is for the right to propose their own 'market based' solutions to the problem and contrast them with the 'socialist' solutions that the other tribe pitches (yes it is a strawman argument but that's the only way things seem to get done. The main thing is not to be Right but to be seen to be different from the other side). The problem is they have gone so far down the denial rabbit hole that it is going to take a long time to recover, and will probably take a generation to shift attitudes.

> Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” ...

I've seen people arguing that climate change is a Western conspiracy (full with Jewish Bankers and the usual cast) to stunt the economy of the East, by robbing them of cheap fossil fuel they need and deserve. Maybe you guys should talk to each other.

God it's hard being a socialist liberal working for the World Bank...

I was a believer and then watched this and lost some of my faith

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY

I believe if you want a solution you're going to have to work on things people want like Elon Musk’s batteries and solar roofs. Find a way to make the market work for you or youre unlikely to get support

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 the express purpose of convincing people through deception, and the community was less than eager to own up to it. Alarmists cannot quantify how much of an impact man is having; attempts at measuring it lead to climate models, and climate models have only a slightly better track record than a bunch of stopped clocks at keeping time. Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed. So everyone agrees that the world temperature changes constantly. But the alarmists can't quantify our impact with any accuracy, can't predict where it will go next with any certainty, but want everyone to drop everything to try to solve it. You see a problem that must be solved at all costs, they see a cult peddling politics and money in place of science, using clean water and air as a hook to reach the masses who all want those things too, but without wanting to join the cult.

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.

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

"Everyone knows that the earth has warmed and cooled since it existed"

This is where things get wrong. Previously warming and cooling has happened over thousands of years. What we see now is something different. A couple hundred years is "instant" in this context.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com