
How Climate Change Deniers Rise to the Top in Google Searches - gk1
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/climate/google-search-climate-change.html
======
aaronchall
I used to be an agnostic on the subject of global warming, but I think it's
reasonable to believe there's an upward trend.

I also think it's reasonable to believe that activist groups are still
exaggerating projections and the efficacy of whatever flavor of the month
solution they're currently pushing.

Here's what should be happening instead:

I'd like to see activists making actual proposals with realistic assessments
of the costs and benefits so that we can make rational judgments with respect
to public resources that we're being asked to allocate to their causes.

Is that too much to ask?

Regardless, mocking conservatives and moderates who want a more careful
accounting from the hysterical activists is what caused me to flag this post.

~~~
insickness
It's ridiculous that people who question anything about climate change are
called 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers. There are
reasonable arguments to be made that climate models are inaccurate or may not
make the predictions claimed. What percentage of climate change is caused by
humans? How much can human beings do to reverse the climate? What is the cost
to benefit ratio of those changes? There is too much variability in the
answers to these questions to shame anyone who challenges the current
orthodoxy.

~~~
throwaway2018a
> 'climate change deniers,' on par with holocaust deniers

The number of people who will be killed by climate change in the next hundred
years because we didn't act is going to make the holocaust pale in comparison.
Climate change related deaths are expected to be just a little under one
holocaust a year by 2030. So I think that is fair comparison.

The cost benefit ratio is incalculable.

But if you were to calculate costs:

\- Renewable are generally cheaper than alternatives

\- Renewable create far more jobs than would be lost

\- Cleaner air is undeniably linked to healthier people

\- And we save one hollocost a year

I used to be agnostic as the other poster puts it too but this is ridiculous.
The steps we need to take not only will definitely help the climate but also
help the economy and health. It is a win-win-win even if the models are
completely wrong, which I doubt.

I think the turning point for me is when I learned sea levels are rising
FASTER than the models predicted. Are you going to wait until the water is at
your door to believe it is real?

~~~
insickness
The implication in your answer is that we should be doing everything we can to
stop climate change. And if I asked you whether we should be doing everything
we can, you would probably say that yes, we should. But really truly
everything? Have you quit using any form of transportation that relies on
fossil fuels? Have you completely ceased to throw away anything non-
recyclable? Have you reduced your carbon footprint to 0? For most people, the
answer is no. What they say is that we should be moving in that direction. And
that I agree with. The question about how fast and the method in which we do
it leaves a lot of room for discussion without shaming people who decide the
cost-to-benefit ratio may show it is not worth taking every single car off the
road tomorrow morning.

~~~
throwaway2018a
No. The ideal is far from what is practical. We can't ban fossil fuel engines
overnight for instance. Clean energy needs the market pressure of competition
to help keep it honest.

Also, I believe that taking every car off the road would actually exceed what
scientist think need to be done. There is no need to be excessive.

At the same time though, to put it in HN terms, it's like if you have a huge
six month software project and according to the burn-down chart you've only
completed 10% of your story points by month five. At some point catch up
becomes impossible. I am really afraid that all the deniers are taking what
could be an easy(ish) problem to solve incrementally and through politics (not
science, not even economics) causing us to delay implementing solutions so
long that by the time we need to act (because it is so obvious things are
broken[1]) it will be very expensive and very painful.

I'm all for weight the cost benefit but if there is a broken water pipe in
your basement flooding your house and you priced out all the plumbers you
don't debate for 20 years if the water really needs to be fixed or whether a
cheaper plumber will be available in the future. And you definitely don't
debate if the water exists. You pay what you need to to fix the leak.

Furthermore in this analogy, the deniers are the insurance company on the
phone asking the home owner who is waste deep in water, "Are you sure that the
water really exists?"

[1] For example: in parts of the Earth it is already obvious. In the northeast
united states Lyme disease (a serious tick borne illness) has been spreading
further and further south because the changes in climate are allowing ticks to
be active more of the year and therefor migrate further. There are thousands
of "tiny" side effects that people don't realize.

~~~
insickness
"There is no need to be excessive."

Now you're the one who gets to decide what is an obvious solution and what is
an excessive one? You see where I'm going with this.

In your analogy about the broken water pipe, you actually don't pay 'what you
need' to fix the leak. You don't take out a loan greater than the house is
worth to fix the leak. You don't open the phone book and randomly choose a
sketchy person to fix the leak. You don't dive into the water with scotch tape
and try to fix the leak. In other words, you still make an intelligent
decision regardless of the severity. By making it impossible for reasonable
people to present rational discussion, you make yourself sound irrational
rather than have the intended affect of bringing in many people who would
otherwise work alongside you to combat the problem.

~~~
throwaway2018a
We have a very clear picture of what the minimum we need to do is. There is a
minimum we need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

My issue is we can't even decide to meet the minimum. It is a minimum for a
reason. At some point we need to stop talking and do something. After 20+
years of trying to convince skeptics we are running out of time to be
diplomatic.

You don't sound like a denier. Or if you are you are reasonable enough to not
state absolutes.

I was OK being politically correct when the "debate" was just stalling
progress. Now that the debate is not just stalling progress but actually
reversing it, it is downright frightening.

Your counter analogy doesn't hold. We only have one earth.

And I think your argument is a straw man. No one is calling people who want to
debate the solution deniers. I have only seen people called deniers who say
that we don't even need a solution at all. Or worse, that warming is good.

------
1337biz
Answer: They are buying Google ads

I still have questions with NYT's perspective on that issue. Are they
seriously expecting Google to evaluate the scientific proof behind every ad
that is placed? Those website do nothing illegal, most probably don't even lie
but just present very selective facts. Or is that just about the next level of
trial by internet and the NYT is already scouting for next potential victims
they can target?

~~~
vixen99
Some people stand to profit from saying the climate is responding to
anthropogenic warming to a worrying (adjust the adjective) degree and others
will profit from discounting (same adjustment applies) such concerns. It's
therefore (knowing human nature) likely that some members of both groups will
present 'very selective facts'.

It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group. Alternatively
you have good reasons to argue for a high climate sensitivity value rather
than a low one. Do you? Discussion totally dissociated from CS consideration
is mere rhetoric.

Here's a recent summary:

[http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-
sensit...](http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-
estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7BVQeLDP.dpbs)

~~~
Oletros
> It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group

And do you say that after linking to a blog that has a really obvious agenda?

Yap, entries like [0] are really unbiased, isn't?

[0] [http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-
emanci...](http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emancipating-
itself-as-trump-accomplishes/#sthash.p5fl5T6W.dpbs)

------
mixmastamyk
I’ve not seen it mentioned before but the anti-climate change platform feels
just like the tobacco, margarine, and sugar misinformation campaigns of
yesteryear. Would not be surprised is students of those were involved somehow.

