Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs • Hacker News Board

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#91

Post by minikites » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #70

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

Also the fact that climate change is being weaponised as an anti-capitalist vehicle by the left doesn't help persuading conservatives that it may be real/man-made/of the stated magnitude.

Conservatives: a group famous for being easily persuaded by the opposition.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#92

Post by ljm » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #35

ljm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a ridiculously uneven playing field that, like too many things, has practically become a sport with two sides supporting their own team. "If you're in any way even slightly wrong, we're right." Denial mixed with pride is a powerful drug and you see it in action everywhere; the amount of energy we expend on avoiding an uncomfortable truth, be it unrequited love, losing a loved one, or being found to be wrong in a…

I'd say this goes beyond being "slightly wrong" and into being outright fearmongering. If the science doesn't support a deadline, then you don't pull one out of thin air while passing it off as a scientific conclusion. To do otherwise is dishonest, even if you think you're doing it for noble ends.

We're just generally bad at estimating though, right? It's not just for climate change. Both nuclear fusion and the depletion of fossil fuels have been a good 50 years off now, for pretty much my entire three-decade lifetime.

The estimates might well be genuine at the time of publication, but our response to them will make the estimates inaccurate. Maybe all we're managing is to maintain equilibrium rather than positive progress.

I don't assume intentional dishonesty here because the risk of being completely discredited is way too high.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#93

Post by mmcgaha » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

Warnings of impending problems serve a real purpose even if they miss the mark. We absolutely want folks thinking about environmental responsibility, and the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, some of the more doom and gloom predictions can send young people down the wrong path.

I remember listening to 10 in 2010 and imagining that I would never make it to 40. Well here we are in 2020, and somewhere along the way, I had to learn to stop letting the grim predictions of others dictate my life decisions.

I do not think we should stop caring about the future of civil and environmental issues, but we also need become financially secure, get married, and raise a family without worry of what may come.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#94

Post by powowow » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

lwhalen wrote: post #59

maxerickson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as one might hope. Cliff Mass, a respected University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, is a noted 'skeptic' of the urgency of climate change, at least the anthropogenic causes thereof. I've heard of others, but he's the one that comes closest to mind.

It's really fucking clear-cut from a risk management point of view.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#95

Post by dalth » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

throw0x1away wrote: post #53

ThomPete wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…

It's just plain bullying. I'd suggest to ignore these trolls. Whole climate thing has turned into a useless political drama and scare-marketing. Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics.

Just the fact that we have to use throwaway accounts to discuss this goes to show the level of the debate.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#96

Post by take_a_breath » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #29

0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…

==The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it.==

This is today's argument, because nobody believes yesterday's argument that nothing was changing. This line of attack is simply the pivot. I clearly remember Ted Cruz running around the 2016 primary saying the globe was not warming [1].

The President exposed it today when he claimed that climate change isn't "a hoax" or "a big scam" like he claimed in the past. Today he said he is a "big believer" in climate change [2].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

[2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admits-climate-change-is...

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#97

Post by cm2187 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #31

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

Any science that doesn't have the luxury of proving by experiment is always on shaky grounds. I work in finance and have seen enough beautiful backtestings that perfectly predict the past but run into walls as soon as they go live, to take a prediction purely based on backtested mathematical model with a pinch of salt.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#98

Post by beerandt » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

bavell wrote: post #87

awb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but OC's comment still stands: state the uncertainty rather than project certainty. "Glaciers are projected to disappear between 2020 and 2030 based on current emission trends" would still be alarming.

Exactly, you don't need to twist the facts to maintain the degree of urgency. Just needs the right framing. "This glacier likely won't survive long enough for your kids/grandkids to see themselves"

Well if we're going to still claim it's science, there needs to be a measurable range stated.

Being over ambiguous just to be right can be just as misleading as overstating certainty. (Think Nostradamus type claims.)

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#99

Post by take_a_breath » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

throw0x1away wrote: post #53

ThomPete wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…

It's just plain bullying. I'd suggest to ignore these trolls. Whole climate thing has turned into a useless political drama and scare-marketing. Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics.

==Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics==

You manage to victimize yourself while calling others "crazy lunatics." Do you see how you are engaging in the exact activity you accuse others of?

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#100

Post by yongjik » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #89

minikites wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's changing a lot, it's a big problem, it's almost entirely because of humans, and we should do everything we can. https://xkcd.com/1732/

You see that change in the dotted to solid line down in the end? Do you know why that is? That's the difference between temperature averaged over thousands of years and then suddenly measuring year over year. If you think that's a reasonable way of showing temperature changes, then I guess we have very different standards for what we consider evidence.

Coincidentally, the title text of this famous xkcd:

> [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

If you car is on fire, and inside temperature exceeded 70°C when all evidence points it never happened in the past 12 years you had the car, you can insist on measuring the past 24 hour average of interior temperature, because that's the granularity of past data, and claim that there is not enough evidence that anything is amiss.

Or you could just...

...hell, who am I kidding, feel free to say heat is part of nature, it's what mammals crave, and increasing temperature only means your car is more comfortable.