splawn

Profits have a way of making what would normally be considered an uninhabitable place, habitable. Look at a map, pick a place that seems crazy to live and look it up on wikipedia.. there is usually a natural resource being the reason there are people there and it is usually oil.

The usual... by ignoring data and published science regarding it[0].

[0]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081553.h...

Rising sea levels due to AGW is a contributing factor[0]. Living in an area (whose economy is) also dominated by the oil industry, I understand why you and the people living in your area tend to be confused on this.

[0]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081553.h...

EDIT: added source link

Both require similar moviemaking techniques as well as the huge budgets that go along with them. Both types of movies also tend to be slotted in as "summer time" blockbusters... Im not the guy you are asking the question to, he might have been thinking along different lines, but that is at least one way they could be lumped into the same category.

Climate change is impossible to dispute, unless you ignore the data. I doubt that ideological willful ignorance will ever go away.

I said something like this once and had my nose rubbed in the technical impracticability of it. However, I share your feeling that something will pop up to address this.

In that case, I think they meant to say: "known unknowns"

Perhaps this is just semantics but I have always thought of "unknown unknowns" as being in that mirky realm of "every single possible thing".

Perhaps I should have been more charitable and less pedantic, which is honestly hard for me to do when I see someone passionately argue against something I thought was a scientific consensus.

>You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns

This sounds reasonable. /s

Do you have an example of anything that accounts for the possibility of unknown unknowns? My guess is if you do, then all it will take to "debunk" it is someone with a bigger imagination.

EDIT: bad comma

There is no way I am not going to call that phone number when I get home. :D

This seems like it could be an ARG or something. I like it, it's intriguing.

Oh well! Then sure!! Its time to start knocking customers out with your hired goons then./s

Not sure. If that somehow poetically translates into the reason it is so easy for us to demonize science with corrupted politics... Then you get a "100% yes" from me. :)

People pointing out the distinction between "killing the planet" and "killing off our species" is what causes my eyes to roll. Seems to me like a moot point.

edit: /mute/moot/g

TL;DR: an ideolog expresses their willfully ignorant opinion about climate change with weasel words and irrelevant "questioning".

This is a dupe post. Here is the other one with more discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14058696

My guess is that political ideology demands it.

First "hn rule" of the voting system... use it. (Its a good way of promoting positivity)

Second "hn rule" of the voting system... don't needlessly talk about it.

Here is a fun little boardgame that models this interesting chunk of history.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156501/greenland

lmao. This was a good read, "JAQing off" is now permanently added to my arsenal.

Has he ever addressed that publicly? It would be soooo delicious seeing him debunk a conspiracy using simple logic the same way others do to him. I wonder if his followers would be too far "gone" to be able to feel the cognitive dissonance that should invoke. I will have to look into this more tonight for a laugh.

I agree, It does make one think... just not critically think.

Even if his personal claim about military and intelligence connections are true, it isn't evidence of anything, as you alluded. For example, most of the people he has connections with could also think he is a crazy wingnut.

"Alex Jones is an inside job!" Hehe, As much as that cracks me up and I would actually love for it to be true... I would need solid lines of evidence and multiple sources backing it up to accept that as true. (Which is exactly why infowars has always fell flat with me)

I would understand that viewpoint if scientists made serious money, but they don't. If they are intelligent and unscrupulous there are MUCH better scams to pursue.

In a fantasy world complete with international conspirators with god-like powers..... sure. If you don't like my use of the word "fantasy" then by all means provide some evidence.

It doesn't matter to the supporting data. Thermometers don't run off of opinion. I guess that is what we need to convince people? lol

When a line of questioning flat out ignores huge amounts of evidence then it can not be considered "critical".

This is the modern version of the original version of monopoly.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1931/anti-monopoly

EDIT: nm, I have been assuming that for some time now... TIL.

Go to the source of the data. Both NASA and NOAA provide descriptions down to the last detail on how they get their data and what adjustments they make to it and why.

Edit: In this case it's NSIDC.

https://nsidc.org/

I thought it was taboo to be an asshole. Hence the term "asshole".