←back to thread

399 points gmays | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.738s | source
Show context
root_axis ◴[] No.42166375[source]
Doesn't seem like there is any foreseeable future where climate change can be addressed. It's not just the leadership of the u.s, but the citizens themselves reject climate change as a real issue. Hopefully I'm just being pessemsitic.
replies(3): >>42166433 #>>42166450 #>>42166664 #
thrance ◴[] No.42166664[source]
Climate change denialism is not a natural state of mind, it was deliberately manufactured by people who stand to keep the status quo[1].

[1]https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=E01

replies(4): >>42166792 #>>42166797 #>>42166815 #>>42167492 #
1. Spivak ◴[] No.42166815[source]
I don't agree with this take but I don't think the quiet part, that we should strive for the highest quality life right now and let nature sort out the consequences (if any) later, is necessarily invalid.

And I think why we're having such a hard time with "climate denialism" is because we're not really presenting arguments against the underlying argument.

replies(1): >>42167142 #
2. deprecative ◴[] No.42167142[source]
We've known human caused climate change has been a thing for over a hundred years. You can disagree with a take but it's a fact that this has happened.
replies(1): >>42167637 #
3. Spivak ◴[] No.42167637[source]
Oh I know, but let's say you didn't want to do anything about climate change and you knew that the kind of people who do:

* Value moral superiority and "being right" over results.

* Broadly think that people who categorically disagree with them are stupid and just need to be educated about the truth.

* Believe that the mere existence of climate change implies that we have to do everything they say to combat it.

* As a group are largely incapable of knowing when they're being put on and baited.

So say hypothetically you "deny climate change." But of course you don't outright deny it, you say that there's no evidence. The discussion shifts away from what the proper response to climate change is to whether it even exists. In public discussions you can dismiss any argument with "well it doesn't even exist." They will then proceed to spinlock boiling the oceans with the energy expenditure trying to prove it exists— "surely this next piece of evidence will be undeniable and I'll have them cornered!"

But that couldn't possibly work, right?