| People are becoming radicalized in large part, maybe even entirely, because of forums like this one. A really good article along these lines was submitted to HN, but unfortunately didn't get much traction: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/all-american-nazi... I think people can handle nuance just fine. Since everyone's gotten it into their heads that policing online discussions is exactly the same as censorship and limiting free speech, it's up to us, the participants, to restrain ourselves from the radicalizing shouting matches that usually happen on so many topics. > See the top of this thread (well currently at least) for a line of discussion where somebody not only thinks climate will imminently lead to earth becoming uninhabitable but wondering how and where people could survive [away from Earth] until the planet does become habitable again. I'm not seeing that anywhere in the comments on this article. Can you link to it? > Or consider the fact that the comment you're responding to, though factually accurate and contextually relevant, is being downvoted for stating facts that mitigate this sort of hysteria. Well, no. I disagree that it's relevant, and hope at least some of the downvotes are for that reason alone. "Stating facts" doesn't automatically make something relevant; good statements of relevant facts would have been, "the researchers didn't take ____ into account during the 800,000 period they're talking about", or, "there's another paper by respected researchers that disagrees with this one", or, "I know a lot about this field and I think I see an error in their methodology", or, "this is all correct but there's no cause for alarm because [body of evidence that global warming is somehow beneficial]" (it's not). It's also not mitigating hysteria. There are good reasons to be extremely alarmed for our future generations. That's not a hysterical position. Some people may be couching it in alarmist statements, but given the opposing number of people who still believe that all of this data is an outright lie anyway [+], that's sort of unavoidable for political topics. [+]: Including HN, during the CRU email breach a few years ago, where the popular opinion was that climate researchers were fabricating data so that they could get more money for further research. |
This [0] seems pretty close to that description.
There are good reasons to be extremely alarmed for our future generations. That's not a hysterical position.
Very few people "believe" strongly enough to invest based on that belief. Why hasn't Bezos or Soros or whoever started buying lots of land in northern Saskatchewan, or shorting land on the coasts?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17008013