Comment by mandmandam | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mandmandam | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

~99.9% of studies agree on human-caused climate change [0].

We know, with absolute certainty for an undeniable fact, that Exxon's own climate scientists skillfully and accurately predicted climate change as a result of increasing fossil fuel use [1].

And we know that Exxon's response to that was to systematically sow doubt for decades, using tobacco-lobby style FUD tactics.

And yet you want us to err on the side of apocalypse. "What if we create a better world, and it was all for nothing".

You've been conned. I know how difficult it is to show someone they've been made a fool of, and I won't try. In fact, I agree with you that in many cases science ought to be questioned - lobotomies, mockery of germ theory, racism presented as science based, Daszak's infamous Lancet paper, etc.

On climate change though, there's very little to respect on the side of deniers. I would argue that, at this point, denying anthropogenic climate change amounts to treason against life.

0 - https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html

1 - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...

Again, I find it very small-minded to imply that I'm a denier because I advocate for questioning what we are told. Furthermore, you are putting words on my mouth which make no sense at all.

People should understand there can be healthy middle grounds, which Parent obviously struggles with.

I don't deny anthropogenic climate change, on the contrary, I'm believe it's real and there's evidence for it.

I am, however, sceptical of how it's being presented and used.

An odd choice; to present your points layered in snark and sarcasm, then complain that you weren't fully understood.

> I am, however, sceptical of how it's being presented and used.

Then say that. Poe's law is rampant on this topic. If you want to be understood, then you need to write clearly and plainly.

> People should understand there can be healthy middle grounds

We're so, so far from a healthy middle ground on the discussion around climate change; and comments like yours above push in the wrong direction.

Questioning "what we are told" on climate change without differentiating between what 99.9% of scientists are saying, and what political/industry goons are saying, is guaranteed to receive clapback from any right minded individual.

So, don't act surprised when there's pushback. It's not "small-minded", it's people responding sensibly to the words you wrote.

I concede you're partially right, and I was later regretting my tone, until I re-read a few of the comments and answers. Still, I actually agree with the content of what you're saying, although maybe not the intention or the conclusions.

My tone is, after all, pushback, precisely because we didn't start from a middle ground to begin with (parent's comment). I am pushing in a direction. You might disagree with it, and that's fine.

> differentiating between what 99.9% of scientists are saying, and what political/industry goons are saying

Even if what scientists say can be inaccurate, as has happened throughout history, the point is rather that I question what politicians or the industry says, based on Science, because while the science might be correct, the message is easily corrupted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com