Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

There is no intellectual curiosity in climate change denial. Don't editorialise.


sort by: page size:

A climate change denier is one who denies that the climate is changing. It says nothing of how they came to that view or the merits of their view. There's no demonization in that.

It's almost as if climate change denialists ignore actual science in the face of a conveniently profitable ideology, as well.

For the most part we aren't climate scientists, there is absolutely no debate about carbon emissions and climate change.

Stop worrying about climate change deniers. Even if you give a perfect citation they will not believe you.

Same mentality that doesn't give climate scientists credence...

Ignorance is bliss right? If you don't believe that climate change is real, etc.

I don't want to debate facts either. It seems silly.

The thing is that we've let the climate deniers speak. But science isn't something you get to have an opinion on. Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters.

Don't you think it's strange that the only people who are interested in prolonging the "gee, is it actually happening?" speculation are the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?


They won't and they don't have to because for the most part articles like this just appeal to people who believe it to be true anyway. They don't need to read further than the headline to have their beliefs verified.

Hell, you want climate denial, just go publish old stories about lack of ice in certain port cities in the early 1900s and lack of snow or increasing strong storms. What is fun about perusing old news is how that much of the same claims made then are no different than today.

Make your own decision but never blindly trust even stories you agree with.


No, the doubters aren't going to care about this study at all. They only care about studies that support their world view, that's why they're still denying the reality of climate change.

We can all read it how we like it: “Climate researchers ignore undesired effects”, or “contrarian outsider is cherry-picking results”. Intention or not, this serves only as flamebait and it will get us nowhere.

Denying climate change is ignoring science and studies as opposed to requiring studies to be sure.

This sounds like a recipe for exacerbating climate change denialism. Let the truth be defined by your peers? I don't think so.

Please, no more climate change articles. Everyone has already made up their minds. There's very little that can be said to someone with differing views on the matter without acrimony.

What you describe there isn’t skepticism (you concede everything but then claim, somehow, that all that isn’t climate change… bizarrely).

It’s apathy.


At this point in time people who deny climate change is occurring are impervious to logic and reason. They are like people who deny evolution or the people who believe the Earth is around 10,000 years old. Nothing is going to convince them they are wrong.

It's too burdensome to ask that all articles about the detrimental effects of climate change present a proof of said claims. At some point in time it's pointless to engage in an endless reproving of claims that most sane people already believe in.


So you're going to ignore actual climate experts because you don't like how the media has portrayed the issue?

anti-intellectualism is no more attractive coming from a computer scientist as it is from an armchair expert on climate change. If you have nothing useful to offer...

It wouldn't, but the prevalent climate change denial strategy is to look for flaws in studies rather than for supporting evidence.

Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.
next

Legal | privacy