Can't believe that got flagged. Dang et al, are you able to see if there's some sort of flagging ring or similar going on? I get that political stories normally get flagged, but a Nature article is not that.
Even ignoring the political aspects, we don't need six articles a day on HN about climate change. If nothing else, it's preaching to the choir. There's no news in most climate change articles, to say nothing of "Hacker" news.
If HN runs simply on what people consider politically important, it might as well shut down and just be a redirect to the Huffington Post or something. There is abundant evidence that online communities end up in certain strange attractors [1], and the dominant political narrative of the day is one of the strongest ones.
I didn't flag the particular article in question, but yes, I absolutely flag any article that can be replaced with little or no loss with $POPULAR_POLITICAL_NARRATIVE_IS_TRUE, regardless of which narrative it is, even the ones I more-or-less agree with. I doubt HN is anybody's sole source of news and it doesn't need to join the stampeding horde of other websites who publish that article 20 times a day.
There are a large enough group of people who believe that climate change is political because some deniers have politicized science as if you can debate against science and fact.
I think you're making too big a deal of this. I would be really surprised if there's a flag ring going on considering the karma you need in order to be able to flag and articles about the environment are on the FP all the time.
Ironically it’s climate change advocates who have politicized science. The IPCC, whose reports are fundamental to climate change advocacy, is an intergovernmental panel. It is the epitome of politicized science. Judge whether or not this kind of politicized science is good or not, but in general I do agree that politicizing science is most likely a negative and ultimately a corruption of science.
