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

Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#51

Post by eloff »

throwaway294 wrote: post #46
avmich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how do you explain scientific consensus on climate crisis?

MIT Professor R. Lindzen explains the consensus in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg The explanation is in one word -- money, as in two words, too much money. In addition, look at the arguments. Since I hold a good STEM field Ph.D., I'm supposed to do that. For more, I gave my explanations in the two URLs to YC I mentioned above.

Wow, how does one achieve this level of self-deception? Can this power be used for good as well as evil?

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#52

Post by sebazzz »

dpau wrote: post #31
swsieber wrote: post #27

There seems to be a huge assumption that when a species is exposed to higher than usual temperatures they'll be a collapse of said species. Certainly this holds true for some species, but all species? I'm a little skeptical. Basically the paper says that large groups of species will encounter higher temperatures than they have before (1850-2005, going by mean annual temperature, and higher defined by 5 years all abov…

It's not whether or not individual members of a species can survive if it's a little hotter. The problem is that climate change is destroying entire ecosystems in which these individuals exist. A polar bear can do ok in a zoo in San Diego, but polar bears will go extinct once their habitat in the Arctic disappears.

And don't forget the food chain. Everything at the top is dependent on below.

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#53

Post by perfunctory »

yters wrote: post #40
perfunctory wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rebellions are sometimes the only recipe for success. Think about Women's suffrage movement, civil rights movement, anti war movements etc.

I agree civil movements and bloodless revolutions through the political process are good. Violent overthrows are bad, AFAIK almost always resulting in a much worse regime than the one being overthrown. The USA's founding is a fortunate divergence from the norm. More recently, look at the Bolshevik revolution, resulting in over 100 million dead.

Agree. I should be more specific next time. By "rebel" I don't mean violent overthrows. I mean peaceful civil disobedience.

Btw, here is some science on violent vs. non-violent uprisings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#54

Post by throwaway294 »

eloff wrote: post #51
throwaway294 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT Professor R. Lindzen explains the consensus in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg The explanation is in one word -- money, as in two words, too much money. In addition, look at the arguments. Since I hold a good STEM field Ph.D., I'm supposed to do that. For more, I gave my explanations in the two URLs to YC I mentioned above.

Wow, how does one achieve this level of self-deception? Can this power be used for good as well as evil?

You gave no evidence. You did not respond directly to anything I wrote. You are just name calling with no rationality. Soooo, you are showing that you have no rational support for your position.

How much do climate change propaganda paid down voting trolls on Hacker News get paid, say, in dollars per down vote?

Where does most of the money come from? Trying to get subsidies for solar panels? Wind farms? Battery efforts? Lobbying for regulations to shutdown competition from fossil fuels? Lobbying to force electric utilities to buy unreliable wind/solar energy?

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#55

Post by surge »

swsieber wrote: post #27

There seems to be a huge assumption that when a species is exposed to higher than usual temperatures they'll be a collapse of said species. Certainly this holds true for some species, but all species? I'm a little skeptical. Basically the paper says that large groups of species will encounter higher temperatures than they have before (1850-2005, going by mean annual temperature, and higher defined by 5 years all abov…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22883616

This comment does a good job of showing how the journalist is sensationalizing the conclusions of the paper.

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#56

Post by yters »

pasquinelli wrote: post #43
yters wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree civil movements and bloodless revolutions through the political process are good. Violent overthrows are bad, AFAIK almost always resulting in a much worse regime than the one being overthrown. The USA's founding is a fortunate divergence from the norm. More recently, look at the Bolshevik revolution, resulting in over 100 million dead.

Yeah, how many are dead from the american revolution? And how many were lifted out of poverty by each revolution? Since you can apparently trace all of history following a revolution to that revolution, how do you add up these numbers? While we're at it, how many deaths do you pin on the british empire and the russian empire?

How many were lifted out of poverty through capitalism, despite massive, bloody revolutions that resulted in genocidal regimes that killed untold millions of their own citizens?

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#57

Post by yters »

cultus wrote: post #50
yters wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered alternative scenarios?

Yes. This is something I think about quite a bit, since I did used to work on climate-change related geophysics. If we started combating climate change decades ago, we wouldn't need such a drastic change. Realistically, no real change will happen for another decade, but our backs are already up against a wall. Having waited so long, the changes required are unbelievably radical and painful, in that our entire way of…

But if human civilization has flourished in much warmer earth in the past, why are you so convinced that a warming globe is necessarily a bad thing? Humans seem pretty adaptable, especially if the change is slow like climate change seems to be. That would seem like a good alternative view to investigate before putting all your money on "destroy the current world order".

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#58

Post by seph-reed »

pubstik wrote: post #41
seph-reed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, who do we hit first, and how? How about big pharma and exclusively using water-boarding so nobody gets killed? Is that too far? What is too far? What is an is not acceptable in terms of punishment for extreme destruction of the earth and general oppression/enslavement of humanity? Are we really going to give them a slap on the wrist while torturing pot dealers?

I think torture is always wrong and calling for it is always wrong. Your comment, as responded to, has no place here and is hateful and vile, no matter how justified and entitled to violence you feel you are. Go soak your head.

You're harmless, and would never deserve such punishment. You don't understand this, but some people aren't like you and require hard boundaries. Hard boundaries as in pain.

You have to understand: not everyone is like you. Not everyone is harmless.

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#59

Post by cultus »

yters wrote: post #57
cultus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is something I think about quite a bit, since I did used to work on climate-change related geophysics. If we started combating climate change decades ago, we wouldn't need such a drastic change. Realistically, no real change will happen for another decade, but our backs are already up against a wall. Having waited so long, the changes required are unbelievably radical and painful, in that our entire way of…

But if human civilization has flourished in much warmer earth in the past, why are you so convinced that a warming globe is necessarily a bad thing? Humans seem pretty adaptable, especially if the change is slow like climate change seems to be. That would seem like a good alternative view to investigate before putting all your money on "destroy the current world order".

Human civilization has not flourished in a much warmer earth. That is 100% falase.

Human civilization has only existed during the Holocene, which has been a period of stability. We are now in the Anthropocene.

These changes are also very fast. By 2050, we will be living in a different world. Even in the 2030s, climate change will cause massive amounts of instability in developing countries due to droughts and famines, and huge migrant crises. It only takes 2-3 major food producing regions to have significantly failed harvests at once to have a famine on the scale of 1-2 billion going hungry. With a stable climate, this hasn't happened. However, it becomes more likely all the time.

The changes we are facing will lead to large portions of the tropics being uninhabitable without A/C and unsuitable for agriculture. That is where most of the world lives. This change is happening very fast, faster than we can adapt. Our industrial civilization depends on immense resource consumption on a global scale. This will be completely disrupted.

Trust me, I know a lot about the climate and its effects. It is a bad thing. No one seriously says it isn't. It's delusional to think it could be a good thing. Your line of thinking is just a continuation of the denialist garbage that got us into this mess.

Re: Wildlife collapse from climate change is predicted to hit suddenly and sooner

#60

Post by yters »

cultus wrote: post #59
yters wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if human civilization has flourished in much warmer earth in the past, why are you so convinced that a warming globe is necessarily a bad thing? Humans seem pretty adaptable, especially if the change is slow like climate change seems to be. That would seem like a good alternative view to investigate before putting all your money on "destroy the current world order".

Human civilization has not flourished in a much warmer earth. That is 100% falase. Human civilization has only existed during the Holocene, which has been a period of stability. We are now in the Anthropocene. These changes are also very fast. By 2050, we will be living in a different world. Even in the 2030s, climate change will cause massive amounts of instability in developing countries due to droughts and famines…

I'll take your word you are an expert, and what you say sounds alarming. I cannot make all the connections, though. For instance, much of the Middle East lives in temperatures that fry eggs during the midday. I was in Afghanistan during the summer, not always with A/C. Not pleasant, but I wouldn't say uninhabitable. I also wonder about being unsuitable for agriculture, since plants flourish in greenhouses, which are quite hot and humid.

On the other hand, I can accept there will be large droughts, famines, and huge human migrations in the future. Our population continues to both climb dramatically, while congregating in a few very dense areas, mostly the cities where living is easier. That is clearly an unsustainable model.

Post reply on HN