Do you actually believe these points or are you simply showing the flawed logic people use to justify climate change denial? 1. Maybe the sensationalist news was claiming an ice age was coming, but it was never really claimed by scientists. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 4. Is there any evidence of these claims? How do current temperatures cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change? Each of the first 6 months of 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded.

As I said a couple of posts down, the parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming," and I simply answered his question; both accurately and truthfully, I might add. Feel free to do a Google search on "why people reject climate change," if you believe my statement is wrong.

Nowhere in my post did I ever speak to, or infer, my views on the subject, since they are irrelevant. I merely answered a question with factual data.

I find the knee-jerk down-votes and negative commentary disturbing, since my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided, but rather based entirely on the irrational assumption that I don't think the same way others do. I would think, being the intelligent lot we're supposed to be here on Hacker News, we would see my commentary as a list of obstacles to overcome in order to reach those who reject climate change based on these observations, rather than killing the messenger, so to speak. Seems like the prudent course of action to me, anyway.

"my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided"

Actually, it is. Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation. That's why you're receiving downvotes.

Phrasing things as e.g. "People are told that the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" would be a better way to put things, if you're merely stating factual information. Phrasing it as something like "the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" makes it sound as if you yourself believe it.

He clearly said, "There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas."

Being a college-trained writer, I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference between, "There are claims that..." and "People are told that..." Both are passive sentences, suggesting that some unspecified entity is making claims, and others are believing them. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two with whatever English degree you have. From my professional perspective, innocentoldguy literally said exactly what you just suggested he should have said, which leads me to believe that he is correct, and that you are judging his post based on emotion rather than rational thought.

As innocentoldguy said, whether people agree or disagree with climate change is not the issue. The issue is that many people don't agree with it, and they believe they have legitimate reasons not to (some of which innocentoldguy outlined in his post). As someone who thinks climate change IS an issue, and wants something to be done about it, you can either down-vote and insult those who you perceive as not agreeing with you (and I’m not convinced innocentoldguy falls into that category), or you can acknowledge their concerns, and work to fix whatever negative perceptions exist in your position. In other words, you can listen to their concerns, and then work to resolve them.

You're never going to convince anybody when you shout them down and down-vote them, but you might if you actually try to listen to what they’re saying and try to have a reasonable dialogue with them. Which seems to be the brightest course of action to you?

"Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age."

You wrote, "Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation," but that is simply not true. The reasons innocentoldguy listed are EXACTLY the reasons that skeptics give for denying climate change; which is what he claimed, isn't it? Sure, his original post could have been written better. So could yours. innocentoldguy did go on to clarify his position though, yet you're still trashing him because of your perceptions regarding his original post, rather than the validity of what he said, aren't you?

Here's a HuffPo article you can read that outlines many of the same issues innocentoldguy brought up, if you still have doubts as to the validity of his statement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-ps...

Sad you're being downvoted. I have many climate-change denying friends and family members, and these are exactly the arguments they use. So much of it basically boils down to them perceiving the left-wingers as crying wolf for many years. Now we're in a position when most scientists agree the wolf is actually coming, but the right is desensitized and politically incentivized to oppose action. We have to thoroughly understand both sides of a debate if the truth is eventually supposed to win out.

Interesting and provocative. That may be difficult for folks today.

> 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

> 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.

Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I find 'many of us' to be a problematic phrase. You're making a claim beyond your personal experience using this phrase and it sure doesn't apply to me.

It may be your experience, and that's fine. But I'm not giving you a pass on claiming it was anyone's experience beyond your own.

I am interested in where you encountered these perspectives; I am aware I may be retro-fitting my own memories.

[edit: as per usual fixing mobile autocorrect and formating ]

> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this.

Really? I do: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970...

> Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I think he's referring to either the "acid rain/forest die-off: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

or the rainforest (this article contains a bunch of environmental scares that didn't happen): http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

Or maybe the forest fire commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4

Or maybe conflating them to make a point.

The first article you linked seems to indicate that most scientists in peer reviewed papers were actually predicting warming, not cooling (42 papers vs 7 papers). Also, I didn't read it carefully but I did not see anything mentioning the government claiming these things.

However, I think it's still an important point that climate change skeptics CLAIM to have been told these these in the 70s, and use it as an important part of their argument.

> > 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

(I believe climate change is real, is happening, and is caused by human activity).

It's weird that people say warnings about ice ages were non existent, because they really weren't.

We can talk about whether they were taken seriously by relevant scientists, or if they were just pop-sci nonsense, but we can't say they didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I guess I'm responding in particular to your words:

> and I do not recall ever hearing this.

when perhaps I should be reading

> and I do not recall ever hearing this from scientists.

Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it?

At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so

That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit.

In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.

Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote?

The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming."

To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change.

I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views.

Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue.

Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.

It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted.

You haven't said anything out of line.

I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.

I have a question for you as well. One argument I've heard from climate-change skeptics is that the earth has gone through ice ages in the past without any intervention from humanity, so who's to say we're responsible for the changes we're seeing now? There are some obvious counterarguments, but I'm curious of your opinion and others here.

Hello, anderspitman. Thank you for attempting to have an honest and intellectual discussion. I'm not sure my answer will help, but I'll give you what I can.

I typically don't take sides on issues, because I feel very few issues are defined well enough to do so without blinding myself to other information and possibilities. I find no intelligence in rejecting information, simply because it does not fit into my world-view, so I choose not to do so. I also like to reevaluate information frequently, since things are rarely, if ever, static. This may not be for everyone, but I like living in an ever-changing world of uncertainty, discovery, and reevaluation. It works for me.

Therefore, rather than take sides, I act. I do what seems right for me, given my current understanding. With regards to pollution, and its effects on our climate, I drive an electric car, ride public transportation or walk when I can, use renewable sources to heat my home (solar, Trombe wall), insulate my home beyond spec, do not use air conditioning, have replaced all my lights with LEDs and skylights, etc. I live in a fairly large home, but I consume less than half the energy of my neighbors, who live in homes half the size. That's what I chose to do about pollution. It seems to be a lot more effective than getting worked up over nothing and down-voting people online, but to each their own.

Maybe you can understand now why I said my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. They don't fit into the polarized, team-sport camps of believers vs. non-believers. Yes, I can read and understand scientific papers, charts, and other data. I can even act upon them, as I've explained. What I won't do, however, is marginalize people and blind myself to the legitimate concerns of others. For example, the federal government has been a huge propagator of lies, fraud, and other evils around the world throughout my lifetime, so when someone runs from climate change based solely on the federal government's involvement, I can only agree that they have a legitimate concern. I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

I doubt that has been of much help, but that is the way I approach most things.

Thanks for the reply. Definitely an interesting approach, and I appreciate your efforts to play it safe with respect to the environment. But you're correct that this didn't really address my question. Maybe I can ask another way. If someone used the ice age argument, how do you think a well educated and articulated person who disagreed with them would open up a meaningful dialogue?

Regardless of what the argument is. If you disagree with someone, and want to persuade them to your way of thinking, you CANNOT make the conversation a you're-wrong-and-I'm-right discussion or you'll lose every time. Facts are going to be of little use as well. The only way to convince someone of something is to figure out how to present it in a way that benefits them.

I think this will be quite hard with climate change, considering the myriad other issues in life that are much more immediate concerns for people.

Why would his opinion matter? Doesn't what he has already said stand on its own merit?

In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.

I think it's sad that you've been conditioned to assume that, but I agree it does happen a lot. But in this case I am literally curious what parent thinks about this argument, because they seem to have a good grasp on the POV of many of my friends, and I want to understand better ways of engaging in dialogue.

My apologies for leaping to conclusions. As you said, it does happen all too often though. I'll try not to let that taint my judgements in the future.

You're right. It does happen a lot. Far too often, in fact. Not only is it as annoying as hell, I think it also hinders progress. Glad to hear you're above it.

Not above it or any of the traps we all fall into as humans, but try to keep an eye out and recognize when I'm doing it.