Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#91

Post by emodendroket »

dragonwriter wrote: post #80
emodendroket wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just whether it makes them worse but also whether it makes them more frequent. If the country is experiencing more highly damaging storms who cares whether they're category 3 or not?

And, also whether it changes where they occur, since places where they have usually occurred are more likely to be adapted to them.

It's a good thing practically no large cities are built around ocean ports, or else it would be real cause for concern that even minor storms becoming frequent could wreak havoc.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#92

Post by dogruck »

emodendroket wrote: post #90
dogruck wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much -- every reader and advertiser is essentially a voter. Many more layers of indirection for NASA officials. Still, I think NASA has heaps of politics.

> Pretty much -- every reader and advertiser is essentially a voter. That is not the least bit similar to being voted for.

Cogent.

I think money talks -- in journalism and in traditional elections.

I agree to disagree with you.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#93

Post by emodendroket »

dogruck wrote: post #92
emodendroket wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty much -- every reader and advertiser is essentially a voter. That is not the least bit similar to being voted for.

Cogent. I think money talks -- in journalism and in traditional elections. I agree to disagree with you.

If a newspaper editor is a democratically elected position because subscribers can cancel their subscriptions and advertisers can pull their ads, then Supreme Leader of North Korea is a democratically elected position, because if you don't like the way they rule you can just leave.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#94

Post by emodendroket »

dogruck wrote: post #89
emodendroket wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Roger A. Pielke Jr in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Huh. I think it's how HN parses the trailing suffix of '.' on the URL.

OK. I was able to read it with that information. So even the martyr you're holding up believes global warming is real, and man-made, and that it would make sense to limit greenhouse gases on this basis. And it seems he was not merely in trouble because he "didn't think climate change contributed to hurricanes" but because others objected to the way he did and presented his research. Not really compelling, to me.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#95

Post by dogruck »

emodendroket wrote: post #93
dogruck wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cogent. I think money talks -- in journalism and in traditional elections. I agree to disagree with you.

If a newspaper editor is a democratically elected position because subscribers can cancel their subscriptions and advertisers can pull their ads, then Supreme Leader of North Korea is a democratically elected position, because if you don't like the way they rule you can just leave.

But, you cannot just leave the DPNK. See how you're wrong?

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#96

Post by emodendroket »

dogruck wrote: post #95
emodendroket wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a newspaper editor is a democratically elected position because subscribers can cancel their subscriptions and advertisers can pull their ads, then Supreme Leader of North Korea is a democratically elected position, because if you don't like the way they rule you can just leave.

But, you cannot just leave the DPNK. See how you're wrong?

Many people do. But look at Xi Jingping instead if you're so hung up on the leaving being illegal part.

Also it's the DPRK

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#97

Post by terminus »

dogruck wrote: post #85
terminus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was right below the line you replied to. Perhaps try reading? A google search for "case for climate change" would also give you meaningful results. But, you already knew that.

Sorry, I meant a convincing piece of scientific reporting. I did read your echo chamber babble. What are your sources? Care to cite one?

Ignoring the gratuitous insult, here's the NCA 2014 report (the report itself is about the impact of climate change; Chapter 2 lays out the case for climate change caused by humans. Citations are at the end of the chapter.): http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impa...

There's also a web version where you can explore the highlights: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. The references are cited right there.

If you don't find this convincing, then I'd like to understand why. Also, if you don't trust this source (a US gov agency), I'd like to understand what kind of sources might you find more convincing.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#98

Post by amoorthy »

liberte82 wrote: post #84

These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive discussions on this topic when both sides have already decided what they believe to be true. How can we talk about anything when we don't agree on the facts?

To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims.

For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0

Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above).

An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out.

Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#99

Post by dang »

DarkKomunalec wrote: post #10
ackfoo wrote: post #2

Harvey was a hurricane. It could have occurred anywhere on the Gulf Coast. There is no direct relationship between climate change and any particular named storm. To argue otherwise is to destroy one's credibility. The problems that exacerbated the disaster of Harvey are indeed linked to climate change, but not in the simple-minded way that Naomi Klein makes out. The economic factors that lead to high-density construc…

> stop having babies Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.

We've banned this account. Using HN primarily for political or ideological battle is an abuse of HN and we ban accounts that do this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

#100

Post by [deleted] »

mercurysmessage wrote: post #72
DarkKomunalec wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also haven't answered why you feel this way. My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.

Sure it does. And your points are not valid, your point is simply that you don't want immigration. You aren't replying to facts about immigrants and immigration besides that it happens, and that people want it. We've all been immigrants at some point, so I don't see where you could possible come from in feeling so strongly about disallowing people from improving your country.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN