←back to thread

594 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
perrygeo ◴[] No.44450405[source]
If this administration doesn't want to do anything to solve climate change, that's their choice. It's a terrible choice, but it's in their power to do so.

However, there's a huge difference between dismissing the severity of the evidence vs. going out of your way to hide evidence. The first is born of arrogance. The later is naked cowardice - they know exactly how wrong they are. If they wanted to project strength, they could simply leave the reports up and say "we don't care". Instead they scurry around behind the curtains trying to cover their tracks. Fucking pathetic.

replies(3): >>44450673 #>>44451113 #>>44455538 #
zmgsabst[dead post] ◴[] No.44451113[source]
[flagged]
Hnrobert42 ◴[] No.44454028[source]
I'm not sure that's a fair argument. When social media takes down what it perceives as misinformation, the right uses the sunshine argument. "Leave it up and let the best argument win."

In any event, just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it is biased.

replies(1): >>44454423 #
zmgsabst ◴[] No.44454423[source]
I was just pointing out the incorrect logic of the comment:

If you believe they’re biased, removing them is removing false legitimacy from biased content — something the government has an interest in. And no different than a journal retracting a flawed paper.

And since you want to discuss “fair argument”: there’s an obvious difference between allowing discourse on a public forum and publishing as an institution.

replies(2): >>44455716 #>>44481539 #
1. Hnrobert42 ◴[] No.44481539[source]
Yeah. I thought about that difference (inst vs SM), but I figured it was cancelled out by the fact that scientific research is way more rigorous than a tweet no matter how you slice it.