[yodon]

>But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.

The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion."

Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.

[mort96]

Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.

[upsidesinclude]

Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up.

Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far.

I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.

[mort96]

I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.

[yodon]

Speaking as someone who is unequivocally of the view that climate change is the greatest threat to human survival, I will say that the manner in which you are attacking your opponent is far less effective rhetorically, logically, and substantively than you believe it to be, because you are bringing so many pre-conceptions about "the other side" that you are hearing the other party say all sorts of things that they aren't actually saying and framing your argument with them around things you believe they believe but that they didn't actually say.

By pulling your own emotions into check and responding to the actual concrete points the other party has made you make your own points far more effective because your words speak directly to what the other party is saying, not to a mental straw man you've built in your mind of what you think the "other side" says and believes.

The ad hominem attacks and attacks on things the other party didn't say (but that you believe they believe) don't strengthen the effectiveness of your words, they weaken it. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the importance of climate change, I'm saying you have the capacity to be far more effective in how you chose to make your points, and given the importance you attach to this topic I'll advocate you owe it to yourself and to the world to bring your A-game to debates and actions on a subject you feel is this important.

[upsidesinclude]

You make some great points, but I fear you are wasting your 'breath'.

I'm glad to hear reasonable discussion that is willing to at least acknowledge some inconvenient and fairly concerning aspects of climate change science. Ideologues don't require any scrutiny of the facts because they've been told what to believe and do so obediently.

There is substantial political interest and monetary incentive for both sides of the climate debate.

To make wild assumptions and then speak in imperatives about the future, as if we all agree about those assumptions, is putting the cart before the horse

[mort96]

I appreciate the criticism. I suppose I was hoping that Hacker News would in general be more on the side against the end of civilization, but I might be over-estimating. It seems like people are all too happy to view repeating oil lobby talking points as "challenging authority". This website is a mess.