[watwut]

> By now, everyone knows about climate change.

Not true, I have seen people deny it on HN recently.

And looking at other debates, yes it is necessary to reiterate the primary cause. Because centrists will absolutely use the lack of that reiteration to do the "well actually it is the pine trees" in two days.

[Orphis]

It's not a single source problem anyway. There are many contributing factors, some are probably more important than others.

The most important thing is knowing what can be done in the short to medium term locally to improve the situation. If you tell the people living near those forests they need to fix global warming, you're not going anywhere. Can they monitor the forest beds better, do some preventive measures to limit the propagation of fires when they happen? Probably!

Unless you're on a major international forum or you have proper global reach and are a trendsetter, complaining about the obvious global warming isn't going to do much. And even if it's not obvious to some other people, you're not going to change their mind anyway on a HN discussion.

[baxtr]

For me, it is more important to fight for human lives than fighting centrists or deniers tbh. You have to pick your battles.

[pepperoni_pizza]

It is centrists and deniers who are stopping us in implementing effective measures that would fight for human lives.

[baxtr]

You will not convince them by saying things over and over again. It’s not like they haven’t heard the facts. It might have even have the opposite effect, increasing their unwillingness to believe it’s more than just a hoax.

Ask yourself: when was the last time vigorous repetition of a position has convinced you personally?

You will convince them by showing them how to do it properly. Show them the way and they might follow.

[watwut]

Vigorous repetition of position when you are facing opposition that vigorously repeats their position ... is the only option.

What you suggest leads to a word where only deniers tall, thus only their side is heard and thus they win. And yes, I was convinced by people I heard talking. I was never convinced by people who said nothing.

[Loquebantur]

You're very wrong.

The propaganda practice of incessant repetition being effective even in face of blatantly obvious contradicting facts is well established.

The reason climate catastrophe deniers incessantly repeat their nonsense isn't because they like to hear themselves talk, it's because it works.

The majority of people are never convinced by rational arguments or facts, they act solely on subjectively perceived personal outcomes. Facing social opposition and loss of face very well can sway them.

[baxtr]

If I repeat here a thousand times that you’re wrong and we should focus on the effects of climate change and not the deniers will you believe me then?

[watwut]

Then focus on effects of climate rather then trying to make the rest of us shut up.

[Loquebantur]

That propaganda trick isn't "one guy repeats stuff a thousand times" and works on a substantial subset of the population.

Human society isn't restricted to "focusing on one thing or the other".

That false dichotomy is another rhetoric trick utilized by interested parties that essentially follow the tobacco industry's playbook.

Deniers finally are a serious problem, as they provide social cover for those putting their personal interests even over human survival.

[hdgvhicv]

Some people will deny water is wet. Reiterating

“Centrists” (whatever that means) aren’t denying climate change.

Even if 99% of America accepts climate change that’s still 350,000 that don’t, and there’s a good chance many deniers are just doing it for the lolz.

The world was unwilling to enact the changes that were required. The mitigations of the damage to both the human and natural world are required now, and there’s lots of discussion about that. Not least what happens when a nuclear power of 1.5 billion people reaches a wet bulb temperature high enough to start killing tens of millions.