Okay, I do agree. But misinformation due to sloppy broad brush strokes does not help. At all. It fuels what you just said. It gives them "See, see! They're wrong about this! What do they know? They're just making stuff up for their agenda!" And to be honest, I have to agree with that statement. Because that first line of the article is simply a "the sky is falling because I say so" statement. And remember, I do agree that global warming is happening. But because I believe the science, I have to be fair on all factual statements. No matter if that fact helps or hurts me. I have to be fair.

It would have been smarter to talk about Alaska heat wave from the get-go that lasted, what was it, 7 to 9 days? I don't remember. That's WAY harder to dance around. Everyone can go "It got hot in Alaska? Weird... it got 90+ degrees hot? WTF? For how long? Holy shit!" Instead of a statement that amounted to "There was a hurricane in the Atlantic. Global warming is real."

He's a professor of philosophy, not a climate or data scientist. Talking from a PPE perspective.

Misinformation requires intent. I'm not convinced there is any intent to deceive here. More likely he's not sufficiently up to speed with a data point not being a trend. Hopefully a scientist or reader will drop him a friendly email.

You're right, and the comment from the article is definitely over the top. My only point is that sadly people would still be denying climate change no matter how perfectly presented the warnings are, and there's an obvious frustration, even anger, aimed at those responsible for this.

One thing that flat-earthers have taught me this past few years, you absolutely can't cure stupid. There will always be stupid ass people on the planet.

However, I do know rational people who don't believe in global warming. Mostly, to the degree of being fearful. They do believe that climate patterns do change. They believe the Earth can get hot. They just don't think in 2050 Florida is going to wash out like some predictions said a few years ago.

The reason, there's too many doomsayers that overblow claims or making mountains out of molehills. This article being one. This leads them to still stay on the fence or lean one way or the other. I'm generally a prudent individual. If I see potential problems ahead, I try to nip that problem in the bud. So even if I, hypothetically, didn't think we are on a crash course when it comes to global warming, I still think it would be good to make sure it never comes to that. Reversing the affects takes too long to let it happen. Best to curb CO2 production as soon as possible, just to be safe. But it's not handled like that at all. If I didn't have my own thoughts on the subject, I won't lie, I'd probably be a denier too. Too many global warming advocates have made some crazy claims with dates that never held up. They want to ban all these lifestyle activities that aren't even the low lying fruit. All in the name of "scaring people into action". That line of thought is archaic and dead. People don't function that way anymore. We need to try being rational about how we spread information. That way a majority of people who actually "change the world" and have "influence" agree and spread the word and ideas on making such change.

First we stop making bullshit claims on global warming. Then we can get people to fully wrap their heads around the real research. Which, I know sounds like a lot. But, it worked in Florida elementary schools. I argue Florida public environmental education (at least in the 90s) was a super effective program. It never overblew anything or made sweeping claims over little things. I remember well that they always said "Bad things could happen if we don't do anything", not will. So yea, maybe I'm bias. But I just know articles like these aren't helping. And sadly, people who believe in global warming because of articles like these, are weak in faith. The first to give up and do nothing.

I agree that all this fear-mongering is turning super counter-productive. While I do think we're in the middle of a climate crisis that is going to put a lot of lives at risk, I have to say that I've grown incredibly weary and tired of people constantly freaking out about it. I wish they would find a new angle: if you only make it about the negative, people will tune out because it's easier than dealing with it. If you make it about the positive, people will engage and work towards it because it's more attractive. And by positive I mean - the adoption of cleaner technologies will definitely impact our economy, and I think it will be for the better. Reducing waste can also impact our lifestyles, even with small changes, i.e. using waxed paper instead of plastic film to preserve food might make food taste better, etc etc Spin the whole "let's change our society to ensure our survival" in a positive way and there'll be a lot less climate change denial.

Don't you recognize that your words are just as meaningful if the parties are switched? For example:

That's not at all why global warming alarmists exist. The reason they exist is because the green energy industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the alarmism is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed.

Perspective matters.

Actually it does not.

Converting an scientific issue into a political (or better say an emotional) one is only needed if the science does not support your side.

Therefore it makes sense for deniers to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win.

So why should the "green energy industry" move the debate from a science driven (which pretty much supports their argument) to a political one?

You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective:

Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win.

This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that.

There are none so blind...

Only under the premise that there is no large scientific consensus.

Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that?

Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.

From [1]:

> And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

So 10! climate scientists argue against climate change? Still looks like there is an overwhelming support for it in science.

[1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...

Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient.

1. Invent a pseudoscientific field.

2. Make normative, political claims from said field.

3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/

> To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on.

To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it.

So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.

I'm not sure if the inverse is particularly meaningful as much as it is potentially rhetorically convincing, depending on what one wants to believe in the first place.

Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right?

> Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right?

No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. But Christians are a convenient scapegoat, right?

> No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment.

It's a quite accurate view of the particular views expressed by plenty of climate change deniers; there are more robust sets of Christian beliefs about stewardship of the environment, but they don't tend to coexist with vocal climate denial.

Your use of weasel words like "plenty of" and "tend to" shows that this is just your biased impression, not necessarily representative of actual populations. As well, your characterization of people who disagree with you using the pejoratives "deniers" and "denial" shows your extreme bias toward one side of the issue.

In other words, you're not considering the issue fairly.

That's right: when you can't answer, just downvote. If you didn't have 66,000 karma, maybe you'd be held accountable by the mods for religious and political flamewars. But since you do, you can act however you please.

That's the funny part to Christianity. You have the "Christians" that think "fuck the planet". But then you get the other side that believe we have to take care of the planet because it's a gift from God. Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events.

I also noticed that pattern with the refugee crisis in 2015. The biggest party by votes in Germany is the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel. Merkel was initially willing to take in refugees but then backpedaled by not saying anything on the topic anymore. Meanwhile, all the other CDU politicians (ministers, members of parliament etc.) all called for restricting the intake of refugees as much as possible. At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. That was only a quip but I've since heard some lower-ranking CDU politicians voice the same concerns. Same with climate change: "How can we claim to be a Christian party when we care so little about honoring God's creation?"

(Disclaimer: I'm not Christian and cannot claim any authority on how to interpret the Bible. I would most likely count as agnostic or optimistic nihilist.)

> At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity.

You did admit that you're not a Christian and haven't studied theology or interpretation, which is fair of you. So let me ask a few simple questions which demonstrate the necessity of interpretation and the diversity of views on the topic:

Who are your neighbors? Are they the people in the house next door? Are they the people in the nation across the border? Should you help the people across the border at the expense of the people next door? If so, to what extent? If you decline to let into your country every foreigner who wants in, but offer to help them by other means, are you failing to honor the command to love your neighbor?

Why does "love your neighbor" necessarily mean "admit to your nation every foreigner who wants in, and freely give them everything they want, otherwise you're violating the command"?

It quickly becomes clear that such demands are, at best, based on a very shallow theology, and at worst, deception by those who couldn't care less about any religion.

> Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events.

No, one has a louder voice than the other because that one is a convenient fig leaf used to put the imprint of the cross on the self-interest of the Mammon-worshipping economic elites.

The other is also politically active as well as involved in direct action, but money is volume in political discourse, and the side serving money has more of it.

Meaningful, maybe? The green energy industry was tiny when the original science around global warming was done. I don't see how they would have the power to do that.

Plus you would have to actually show some evidence.

You only have a point if you're someone who believes climate change isn't happening. Otherwise switching the words around as you did only shows how ridiculous opposite side is.

Global warming is a trend that can now, with thirty years of hindsight, be clearly identified. However, many people on both sides made lots of predictions that didn't come to pass, so some amount of skepticism towards certain more alarmist claims is warranted. It's too convenient to just lump any skepticism into the "denier" and "bad person" box, and that's exactly what happens.

It's also dishonest to point out that the fossil industry has a clear interest, while ignoring that the renewables industry also has such an interest. A lot of business is being made peddling non-solutions to a problem that might actually be unsolvable.

It's perfectly fair, however, to point out the difference in economic scale and political influence between the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy industry. The fossil fuel industry is rather larger, and rather more powerful. And by "rather", I mean "tremendously".

It is also perfectly fair to point out the relative likelihood that international political problems around fossil fuels are far more likely to cost the US in blood and treasure than political problems around renewables. We don't go to war for wind and sunshine. Meanwhile, we spent hundreds of billions a year as a nation - not to mention a toll of American military and non-US civilian lives - in order to maintain our semblance of control over flow of oil.

You want to be honest? Sure, let's be honest.

One side may have more "bribe money", but the other side has idealism behind it. That goes a long way.

Clearly, the climate apocalypse is what dominates the media narrative, so if you want to make money tomorrow (not yesterday), you're pushing renewables, not fossils.

The Green New Deal represents a $93 trillion subsidy to renewable energy, if it is enacted. That’s more than comparable.

Where are you getting this from? We don't have a Green New Deal. We don't have a firmed-up bill presented in Congress, even. And how is the number you offered calculated, and by whom? Because it reeks of partisanship.

It’s the only estimate I know of. Here’s a critical look at it: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne...

Seems to me that link more or less debunks the $93T estimate as partisan bullshit, which is what I expected it to be.

To put it in perspective, the GDP of the US is currently about $19T, so they're saying the Green New Deal would cost 100% of the GDP for five straight years. This seems... exaggerated.

> This seems... exaggerated.

Not if you understand MMT and its proponents. AOC believes that every dollar spent by the government on infrastructure magically turns into five dollars of economic growth, so she's willing to go into deep debt to make it happen.

Now that definitely sounds like partisan nonsense.

Perhaps, but it's true. AOC is a proponent of MMT[1] and has made that "five dollars for every one dollar spent" argument[2].

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-e...

[2] I can't find the source for this one right now, but it was in a video interview regarding the green new deal, right around when it was announced.

Adding on to this, the five dollars for every dollar spent makes sense in some contexts. It’s a key factor in support of federally funded basic research like NASA, NSF, DARPA, etc. I actually believe this based on the reports I’ve seen for NASA spin offs.

But what AOC is talking about is not basic research, which has a multiplicative effect because it opens up new technologies, new products, and new industries. A New Deal is work for works sake, and economically substitutive... so the return is actually less than a dollar for every dollar spent.