Hacker News Reader

Comment by tx21 | Hacker News Reader

Without taking a position either way, my understanding of the skepticism is not that warming is not occuring, but rather the degree to which things that humanity can control influence that warming (0% to 100%).

View on HN

> my understanding of the skepticism is not that warming is not occuring

That's a fairly recent goalpost move as "warming is not occurring" has become an untenable position.

yep.

First it was: it's not happening.

Then: but how much?

Now: but can we affect it?

Soon it'll be: are we sure it's a bad thing?

Then it'll be: it's bad but it's that other guy's fault.

And then it's back to "it's not happening".

Contrarianism is a mouse wheel, not a ladder.

This is exactly my experience talking to contrarians on the subject. Their viewpoint shifts subtly over time whilst continuing to oppose the consensus.

I don't think that's right, though it may be your view. Temperatures have in general been warming since the Maunder Minimum 400 years ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Ca...

Clarification edit: Meaning I think there is a better argument in the polemic (I'm not suggesting the answer)

It's not just a any single coherent opposition to global warming. You get everything, including I am sure a non trivial group of people think the climate is cooling due to man made effects to people who think man made warming exists, but it's not going to have a meaningful impact.

It's not a question of evidence at this point, it's a question of the limitless realms of ignorance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com