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

Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#101

Post by dang »

martincollignon wrote: post #6

Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive): - https://climateaction.tech/ - https://techimpactmakers.com/ - https://www.tmrow.com

I'm a moderator here. The users replying to you are correct: the comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=martincollignon are way over the line and we would have asked you to stop if we had seen them. When someone does this for their startup that's an immediate ban.

The principle of HN is intellectual curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Repetition is the enemy of curiosity—readers come here for things they haven't seen before. So is promotion—readers come here for relief from growth marketing, not to be subjected to it. We want users to post to HN when their personal intellectual curiosity is engaged, and not otherwise.

Rallying support for a cause is no different, even if the cause is important—more important than the rest of what's on this site. In fact, that importance means that HN needs even more protection, because otherwise it would be taken over completely by those more important things.

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#102

Post by tzs »

tremon wrote: post #17
adrianN wrote: post #4

Maybe that'll make them rethink drilling for more oil and gas there.

Of course not, they need that oil and gas to power the AC units everyone will be buying now. Won't somebody think of the revenue?

You joke, but that's close to an argument that's actually been promoted by The Heritage Foundation: "How Fossil Fuels Will Help Us Confront Climate Change" [1].

Briefly, the argument goes that the average world temperature is about 58 F, and that climate change could raise that by 7 F. Dubai averages about 35 F above the world average of 58 F and they get by just fine by heavy use of air conditioning. They are able to do this, according to the article, because of their heavy use of fossil fuels and government policies that promote "economic freedom and growth".

The article notes that not every county as oil, but they can still share in this fossil fuel driven response to climate change:

> Not every country has oil, but in a globalized market, cheap fossil fuels are available everywhere to spur rapid growth and technological change.

[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#103

Post by badcede »

teddyh wrote: post #88
j4mie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complaining about posts that are trying to raise awareness of and find solutions to climate meltdown feels a bit like criticising a fire alarm for disturbing your sleep. Calling this "spam" implies the poster hopes to profit from his actions. In this case, the poster literally wants to save the entire planet.

It’s spam. https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/that-which-we-dont.html#n...

Yes and https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/that-which-we-dont.html#p... as well.

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#104

Post by tzs »

StreamBright wrote: post #28
iamzozo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The highest temperature ever recorded at Anchorage’s official station was 85 degrees"

Yes so in the last ~100 years it was the highest. How about 1000 years or 100000? Why is only the last 100 years relevant in the context of climate?

Because the context is the effects humans are having on climate, which were minimal 1000 years ago and nearly nonexistent 100000 years ago.

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#105

Post by StreamBright »

aoeaoeaoe wrote: post #55
ryder9 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so now the narrative has shifted from denial to "hysteria" & "clickbait" eh?

Not for Peter Moore, his narrative has always been consistent, that's why Greenpeace erased him from founders on their website.

Yes because he revised his views on nuclear.

"Moore co-chaired the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which was supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a national organization of pro-nuclear industries.[59] In 2009, as co-chair of the Coalition, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past.[59]

He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions would require increased use of nuclear energy to supply baseload power."

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#106

Post by StreamBright »

keymone wrote: post #54
StreamBright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess there is no scientific reason, just living memory. For me such articles just lack the scientific merit and the only purpose is trying to cause mass hysteria. Earlier it was about how we all going the freeze to death, nowadays it is how we are all going to die because of global warming. In fact Earth went through several warm and cool periods, even if you look back just few hundred years. I am all for reduc…

Or maybe it’s only you who considers it clickbait and everybody else immediately understood the article was about recorded history of temperatures, because, you know, it’s kinda common sense?

I do not debate whenever it was the record in the last 100 years, I just try to understand what is the scientific implication.

If you look at the bigger picture it means nothing:

Last 65M years:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_C...

Lat 10K years:

https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000...

Now please explain to me that how looking at only the last 100 years is relevant or it prooves anything.

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#107

Post by aoeaoeaoe »

coldtea wrote: post #79
aoeaoeaoe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one day it will record lowest record.

Yeah, and in between it might cause the premature agonizing death of hundreds of millions of people in the next 30-60 years. Who cares, right?

I remember when I was like you.

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#108

Post by [deleted] »

StreamBright wrote: post #105
aoeaoeaoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for Peter Moore, his narrative has always been consistent, that's why Greenpeace erased him from founders on their website.

Yes because he revised his views on nuclear. "Moore co-chaired the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which was supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a national organization of pro-nuclear industries.[59] In 2009, as co-chair of the Coalition, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past.[59] He argues that any realistic plan to red…

[deleted]

Re: Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week

#109

Post by aoeaoeaoe »

StreamBright wrote: post #105
aoeaoeaoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for Peter Moore, his narrative has always been consistent, that's why Greenpeace erased him from founders on their website.

Yes because he revised his views on nuclear. "Moore co-chaired the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which was supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a national organization of pro-nuclear industries.[59] In 2009, as co-chair of the Coalition, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past.[59] He argues that any realistic plan to red…

I fail to see how that's a revision of his views. He was against some nuclear bomb test sites, not against nuclear energy.
Post reply on HN