Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by mikeash on Thursday August 10, 2017 @03:32PM
(#14983260)
I think it's also important to mention 5) decades of political propaganda painting climate science as a political issue, because Republicans found it advantageous to use as a wedge issue.
I think just about everyone I've talked to who doesn't believe in climate change arrived at that position from spending lots and lots of time listening to Rush Limbaugh or similar.
Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by triangleman on Thursday August 10, 2017 @04:04PM
(#14983603)
Seriously? This is HN, there are plenty of climate skeptics here, and I would guess that 0-5% of them listen to Rush Limbaugh or similar. Perhaps they are simply people with a scientific mind and came to different conclusions after evaluating the evidence independently?
Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by polotics on Thursday August 10, 2017 @04:12PM
(#14983671)
The word "simply" sadly does not apply to climate modelling, reaching conclusions simply usually means lots of confirmation bias, and a foregone output. How do you know there are plenty of any opinion on HN?
Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by DiNovi on Thursday August 10, 2017 @04:41PM
(#14984023)
He's projecting his own skepticism onto others; assuming since he reached his conclusion "many others" must have as well.
Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by vilmosi on Thursday August 10, 2017 @05:31PM
(#14984507)
No, I'm pretty sure they are all listening to Rush Limbaugh or similar characters as there is no-one else in the world thinking this to be true. If you follow all their links, they all converge to a few right wing, US based, sources.
I know this is a broad generalisation, but in this case, I believe it to be true.
Re:2016 was third consecutive year of record global warmth
by mikeash on Thursday August 10, 2017 @05:59PM
(#14984734)
Seriously. Of the ones whose media habits I've found, it's always like that.
That doesn't apply to HN. I rarely if ever figure out what the commenters here are watching or listening to. But I would be surprised if they were much different.
1) I don't think local news media has helped last few decades. The constant reports of study that say "X" bad, followed by no no "X" is good (all the while both studies were describing tiny results) has led to distrust.
2) Govt funding of stupid studies creates image where researchers are scam artists who provide results by money
3) Lots of research is done by universities. Growing dissatisfaction with university system being projected onto researchers therein.
4) It was always sold wrong. It should have been sold as energy independence (freedom) not a burden (we need to change how we are doing things and limit ourselves).