Haven't we learned that dismissing or insulting people isn't going to change their opinions but rather just push more people over to their side?
People just casually reading through might be turned off by it, but looking at any of the data will prove deadcast to be right.
People can believe in crazy conspiracy theories in one part of their life and be perfectly normal in the rest of their life, so it's not a universal condemnation of the poster. But it's a huge waste of time for anybody to watch those YouTube videos unless they make a study of conspiracy theories or the art of deception or scientific cranks themselves. So in that regard, saving 90 minutes of a persons life is a kindness.
However, by being aggressive and dismissive, we are insulting people that are on the fence, as well as the opposition. They will feel stupid and will see the other side as being more reasonable and accommodating. That is why I say that this kind of comment is not useful. It's actively pushing people in the center towards the other side.
EDIT: Accidentally posted without finishing typing the comment.
This is a scientific lecture, given by a professor. I found it very interesting. Why does it threaten you so much?
You wrote: "Why does it threaten you so much?"
This is a classic aggressive move, no-one has claimed being threatened, they have instead pointed out useful information about this obvious fraud.
As you have been on HN indeed a while, may I ask you that you justify this "Why does it threaten you so much?", or go away?
Thank You
|You're a danger to the world we live in.
The above person is saying he threatens the world, and as a resident of such world, is also being threatened.
There are now two very good reasons not to watch the video: 1) the lecture is by a dishonest man and we are being asked to trust that his models and judgement are accurate, and 2) it's most likely that the video was posted for a political agenda and not scientific or technical edification.
An "echo chamber" when it comes to science usually means that things have been mostly figured out correctly. An "echo chamber" for political discussions is where it could be considered a bad thing.
On the matter of AGW, we have the situation where the science is not separate from politics because there is a strong push by many people to use the power of the state to impose changes on people and companies in the name of AGW mitigation.
The fact that there are huge amounts of money that could flow into the coffers of heavily debt burdened western governments should make you pause a little to consider how this money may bias the science.