>a non-insignificant portion of HN refuses to believe in climate change.
This strikes me as a Motte-and-Bailey style argument. I don’t think the issue is whether the climate is changing, but people who bang on about the climate changing are typically doing it in service of some policy outcome. If I don’t believe those policies will have their purported effect, or are feasible at the required scale, or if I think those policies with have far more disastrous consequences than maintaining the status quo (for example, mass de-industrialization in order to limit global carbon emissions, which after a series of waving hands, saves the planet or something). Does challenging those policy proposals mean that I refuse to believe in climate change? To a non-insignificant portion of climate commenters, the answer is probably “Yes.”
This strikes me as a Motte-and-Bailey style argument. I don’t think the issue is whether the climate is changing, but people who bang on about the climate changing are typically doing it in service of some policy outcome. If I don’t believe those policies will have their purported effect, or are feasible at the required scale, or if I think those policies with have far more disastrous consequences than maintaining the status quo (for example, mass de-industrialization in order to limit global carbon emissions, which after a series of waving hands, saves the planet or something). Does challenging those policy proposals mean that I refuse to believe in climate change? To a non-insignificant portion of climate commenters, the answer is probably “Yes.”