[eemax]

Individual animals in the wild die cruel, slow, painful deaths all the time, regardless of whether their species as a whole is thriving or not.

So while this video might evoke a strong emotional response, it is just an anecdote and not actually evidence one way or the other for human-caused climate change.

Of course, human-caused climate change is obviously real, but it's not OK to use bad arguments even if your conclusion is correct.

EDIT: To clarify further, I am not disputing that polar bears are not being harmed by climate change, or even that the particular bear in the video is not starving because of climate change. I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time.

[ritchiea]

We need to use whatever arguments are effective to steer people and governments to good policy as long as we know those arguments are supporting a cause that is scientifically backed. Some people don't get and don't want to get scientific evidence. If there is a plausible causal chain from global climate change to that suffering polar bear we should be using that polar bear to convince people climate change is real and bad. Most people don't have the patience for or interest in scientific arguments and we have to convince most people that this is a problem not just hacker news.

[wbhart]

There is no way for the general public to distinguish between arguments presented in this way that are genuine, and ones that are pseudoscientific. It's never ok to knowingly present information which is unscientific, to achieve a political end. It can be discredited and may do more damage to the cause than good. In this particular case, polar bear populations are not observed to be in decline, so it's a poor argument to make, which can easily be discredited with real data.

[ritchiea]

I strongly disagree with you. There is research in social psychology showing it is difficult for most people to reason from technical, statistical arguments. One thing I have noticed reading political essays recently is that the emotional impact of scientific, technical and statistical arguments can be bolstered with fitting specific anecdotal evidence. Logic is often not enough to change people's views or motivate them to change. This applies to the most logically minded of us as well.

[chrischen]

That’s called propoganda. You advocate using propoganda to justify a cause you have predetermined to be scientifically backed. Why not just use the scientific backing directly?

[ccalvert]

Those who understand Climate Change and love science should not cede the ground to those who disagree with them without a fight.

Most people don't understand science at the same level as many of the participants in HN. They are not bad people, and they are not necessarily ignorant people. But they don't base their decision-making process on scientific principles. Someone needs to reach out to these people and help them understand the world we live in.

Ten minutes on Fox News and similar sites should convince anyone that Climate Change deniers understand how to influence people and do all they can to advocate for those who profit from policies that harm our world. We have to use the available tools to counter their arguments.

[chrischen]

You’re denying the people of their right to be treated as an intellectual equal.

If they don’t understand it is their loss. You can bet against them in the capitalist system. Sell them houses near coastlines. If they’re truly ignorant and you are in fact backed by science and facts, then you can profit off of them.

But if you can justify doing this for people you consider not worthy of the facts because they probably can’t understand it, then you can justify it with anyone.

This is the same rationale for why the FBI or law enforcement want more power. People don’t understand that thy are the GOOD guys and they won’t abuse their power.

If the good guys—the people backed by science in this case—lose their accountability to actual science by being good at propoganda and manipulation, why even bother with science? They’ll become bad guys soon enough when they finally realize the facts never mattered.

When propoganda is spewed from both sides the only way to tell is to have facts based on reality that people can independently verify. That’s the whole point of backed by science. If you deny people the option to independently verify then you deny them the ability to find out who’s right and who’s wrong. At that point are you any different from the bad guys?

[socialist_coder]

Because a large portion of people in the world are not swayed by logical arguments. So, if you want to be an effective communicator, you need to talk to them in a way that works.

[pohl]

The opposing side is currently employing a constant deluge of propaganda to push their side of the debate. Insisting that we educate all of humanity in enough science to sway them would be bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight.

[jackhack]

Yet the pro-global-warming side has been caught falsifying data on any number of occasions -- from "tweaking" a century-long trend via a correction curve to a recently publicized outright falsification of data in order to "proove" that sea levels increasing.

This muddies the water and gives me great doubt to the veracity of the overall claim. If man-caused global warming were happening, the data would show it. Why fake the data?

Perhaps because data proving anthropomorphic climate change does not exist and it must be manufactured? But it has become a near religious issue and dissent is not tolerated. Daring to ask for proof is a thoughtcrime.

[cannonedhamster]

...sigh...

They corrected a known design flaw in the temperature recorder. This isn't freaking tweaking, it's properly accounting for external variables. The fact that you bring this up shows once again that depth of knowledge and experience in one field does not automatically translate to another field. I'm going to break it down in a way I'm pretty sure you'll understand. Back when the browser wars were going on web pages would have to "tweak" their code so that a page would display properly. Just because someone had to write a bit of code because because of a flaw in the browser didn't mean that the data from the website was a lie.

The thing with the seal level rise? Is this that old Morner chestnut that's been thoroughly debunked numerous times and has been around since the early aughts? The guy was found himself to be falsifying data but every few years someone trots this out as new and it's just not. I mean it's a pretty straightforward well known phenomenon that adding more water to a body of water will make it rise and since we are losing land ice we're adding more water to the ocean. You can easily replicate this by putting an ice cube in a glass of water.

There's mountains of proof of human caused global warming and really it's basic science, but none of that matters because if you choose not to believe the proof there is nothing anyone can say to you to make you believe otherwise. No one can make you stop believing hucksters and conspiracy theorists. You can dissent all you want, but it doesn't make you right.

[jackhack]

Nope. This is yet another story, which broke last week: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate...

"The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment."

It's another example in a long line of data "adjustments" that turn science on its head, showing the opposite of what is actually observed. I call it fakery. You have other words. We disagree.

As I said, it muddies the waters. There may be real evidence, but this fraud doesn't help the cause.

[RickJWag]

Yes, exactly. Faking data (and making emotional appeals like this one) make me doubt the argument. Or at least the motives of the people behind the argument.

[ritchiea]

Are you saying everything that exists outside of deeply researched technical arguments is propaganda? I'm not talking about misleading people, I'm talking about finding ways to reach people who will never be interested in digesting the type of science it takes to deeply engage with the scientific arguments. Those people exist and they vote.

[ZenoArrow]

Propaganda can be used for good. A lot of the stories that children are told by their parents and teachers when they were young are based on the same principals as propaganda. Propaganda is just done on a larger scale.

[stmfreak]

Using bad science to influence gullible people is a great way to end up with terrible policies.

[nocoder]

This is not right. If ends justify means then we are in for a world full of strife and tribalism. This will make it difficult for people to trust anything. This is how we have ended up in this highly charged outrage porn filled world where everything and anything real or fake is being used to influence and recruit people towards one ideology or the other. This in the long term does more harm than good even for the people who think they are on winning side. It is more than ever important to be genuine and real and not do or say anything just so that we can win an argument, however right we might think we are.

[icc97]

Tangentially to this, I was wondering the rather simple question of - "Where do the old age ducks/birds go to die?". They mostly get eaten is the rather obvious answer [0].

[0]: http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-...

[ant6n]

> I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time.

Good thing most people already know we don't live in the world where climate change is not happening, so this doesn't need to act as proof of it happening, but rather as an individual example of what is happening all over.

[eemax]

Yes, this is probably effective propaganda, and moreover, propaganda for a just cause.

Nonetheless it is not evidence for climate change, and moreover it is not even necessarily an example of the effects of climate change - even we 100% fix climate change, there will still be plenty of starving wild animals available for sad videos.

The actual way to ensure there are no starving wild animals is to exterminate them in the wild. But that's probably not a good idea.

[jackhack]

"propaganda for a just cause"

That's a troubling turn of phrase.

[b4lancesh33t]

Has anyone in the linked article or in these comments tried to position this video as evidence of climate change? I don't see it if so.

[oconnor663]

Sure, it's in the original article.

> By telling the story of one polar bear, Nicklen hopes to convey a larger message about how a warming climate has deadly consequences.

[b4lancesh33t]

I don't think the photographer would say that the polar bear should convince anyone that climate change is occurring. Instead, they assume that reasonable people are already convinced, and are trying to demonstrate a reason one should care.

[lwall]

No. "Here's an example of the effects of climate change" is not the same thing as "this is proof of climate change"

[taneq]

Being an animal is generally a terrible experience, so using an individual, terrible experience of an animal to make a political point seems disingenuous.