Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Well that's an unsupported conjecture that I see no reason to accept.

I base it on having friends who were in the field; of course that won't be particularly convincing to you. (I'm pretty sure others in these comments had examples of people being pushed out for reaching the "wrong" conclusions, but I have to be honest that I'm trusting the people I know personally rather than anything else).

> Where is the motivated reasoning in acknowledging that climate change is not the only reason to replace fossil fuels?

Suggesting that climate change is likely to be true because you have non-climate-change reasons to want to replace fossil fuels is motivated reasoning. The fact that you brought up non-climate-change problems with fossil fuels in a thread about whether climate change is occurring suggests that you're doing it.



> Suggesting that climate change is likely to be true because you have non-climate-change reasons to want to replace fossil fuels is motivated reasoning

Except I didn't do that.

> The fact that you brought up non-climate-change problems with fossil fuels in a thread about whether climate change is occurring suggests that you're doing it.

The thread isn't strictly about whether climate change is real, it was about climate change alarmism, about whether climate change was reducible to a single variable, and whether we should be motivated by the available evidence to make drastic changes to potentially avoid the predicted outcomes. The additional point I made is perfectly in line with that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: