←back to thread

399 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
1. darksaints ◴[] No.42166758[source]
I remember about 20 years ago I was pretty entrenched in circles of thought that were not quite "denialist" so much as they were "it's not gonna be as bad as they say it is-ist". I remember a prevailing line of thought was that climate "alarmists" only chose the most extreme predictions of the various models in order to sell the urgency of acting quickly to stop it. There were those that said that the most extreme predictions came from models that emphasized positive feedback loops (like arctic permafrost thawing), and ignored or de-emphasized negative feedback loops (like increasing vegetation growth rates). And above all, I remember one particular number standing out as where they thought we would plateau. It was at 1C of warming arriving around 2030.

Whoops. Maybe the scientific consensus should be listened to more often, and the fringe less often.

replies(1): >>42168740 #
2. thegrim33 ◴[] No.42168740[source]
This is a pretty common propaganda pattern. Pointing to a massive group of people, throwing them all together under one label (in this case, 'climate deniers', in other cases 'vaccine deniers', etc.) even though the people in the group have a massive range in their opinions and beliefs, and then point out some small subset of the group that are the craziest/weirdest/most "wrong" members in the group, and straw manning them as representative of the entire group.