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

It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

noaa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 578 posts

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#431

Post by User23 »

bena wrote: post #413
User23 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, “observably” means I was making an empirical claim. The basis may be tautological which is to say logically sound, but the key point is that I and others have observed zealotry. Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is edu…

His point is that saying "zealots are zealots" doesn't say anything. Or the people who are zealots are those acting like zealots. Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions. He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you…

> Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions

All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us.

> I mean, your logic is bad

I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry.

> You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots.

Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots.

Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#432

Post by panzagl »

anyfoo wrote: post #424
panzagl wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. But the solutions can't impact the environment, or the developing world, or the disadvantaged. It's pretty obvious that the US, UK, and Commonwealth countries are going to be expected to disrupt their lives and economies while the rest of the world dithers and screams that not enough is being done.

Who are you arguing with? Because I'm pretty sure climate change cannot hear your complaints or arguments. It's just going to do what it does, destroying your world and that of your children, while you argue about... commonwealth, I don't know.

If climate change is a manmade problem than you cannot ignore politics, psychology, etc. in the solution. Otherwise 'nuke China' is more of a solution than 'tax carbon' is.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#433

Post by lhorie »

rapind wrote: post #418
lhorie wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amusing to compare how we treat fundamentalists vs how we treat children. They both can be extremely stubborn and say the darnest things, but with one group, people think ridicule is going to yield good results, even though with the other, that's a big no-no. You know you're not going to get a good result from a yelling contest with your kid about who's more right, so I don't understand the reasoning that d…

This analogy is deeply flawed. Your kids brain is still developing and they are still actively learning. Taking different approaches helps. That is almost always not the case with a fundamentalist.

The police begs to differ. Negotiation is an effective tactic used by competent police forces against hostage takers.

Also, fundamentalists are people, not pre-programmed robots. Many ISIS fighters, for example, are young adults whose very active learning capabilities are being exploited by a subversive group.

Also, I think the track record of arguing and butting heads kinda speaks for itself. Everyone's doing it and yet the world is literally on fire and on a path towards destruction.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#434

Post by nonbirithm »

lmilcin wrote: post #118
redisman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?

So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and A…

Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument.

If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either.

It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me.

It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner.

But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#435

Post by danaris »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #386
danaris wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating the broader progressive ideology with the frustrating realities of trying to pass specific policies into law. The reason what we're getting out of Washington doesn't include enough to fight climate change may not be absolutely 100% the fault of the Republican Party, but it's enough that blaming the Democrats for it to any meaningful extent just smacks of disingenuous both-sides-ism.

I'm not talking about broader progressive ideology at all (apart from a belief that climate change is a real existential threat that requires significant immediate action), I'm talking about the priorities of the current crop of progressive Democratic politicians (and/or Democrats more broadly).

I guarantee you the progressive Democratic politicians have climate change as a high priority—and "Democrats more broadly", depending on how you define it, don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent agenda.

The progressives don't get to make laws all on their own.

Even a single lost Democratic vote on a bill means it doesn't make it past the Senate, and Senators Manchin and Sinema have both made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in fighting back against the Republican obstructionism to advance a positive agenda for the country. I'm frankly surprised that anything got passed at all, given their resistance in the past few months.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#436

Post by eloff »

noobly wrote: post #259
eloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've done that though. The climate stayed in a narrow 1 degree Celsius range since the end of the last ice age. It's likely that very stability that allowed agriculture and civilization to flourish. That epoch is called the Holocene. We've left that now and entered a new era. The Anthropocine, where the major driver in the climate is now us.

From what I understand, the sun has also been getting hotter, hasn't it? I agree that man contributes to climate change, but quantifying this is where I think the conversation gets interesting. I haven't really gone very far down this hole though as it seems too muddled. And then if you do conclude man is primarily at fault, what do you do? The US is only responsible for so much output, for example, and sources like…

That's a tired talking point. The investigation has been done and it's human activity by a country mile. You can Google it if you're curious.

Basically all countries have to cut emissions to zero or nearly zero. I think this is actually looking hopeful. Even China and India are on board. The US must do it's part too and demonstrate leadership in this area.

There's a massive phase change in the global economy away from fossil fuels. The counties that embrace it last will find the market already captured. It pays in this case to lead the way.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#437

Post by Diederich »

slg wrote: post #426
linuxhansl wrote: post #303

Imagine an asteroid would be on trajectory to collide with earth in (say) 2025. Possible order of hypothetical events: 1. Scientist discover the asteroid. Calculate risk of collision. 2. Asteroid comes closer, probability of impact is calculated as high. 3. People will start saying that we cannot let our economy be controlled by the specter of an asteroid. 4. The asteroid becomes visible. You can see it with your bar…

The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. The rich and powerful are always going to be protected from experiencing the worst aspects of climate change. They won't be the ones working outside when the air quality is dangerous from wildfires. They aren't going to be the ones who can't sleep because it is 90 degrees in their home. They won't be st…

> The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that.

This is a valid point.

To clarify, though, I don't think climate change is likely to make humans extinct, but I believe it has a non-trivial chance of destroying our civilization.

If/when the climate gets really bad, human irrationality will go into overdrive, and we'll be a massive danger to ourselves.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#438

Post by polotics »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #208

What year does NOAA choose as the beginning for "record"? It's relevant to the discussion. Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have existed for 200,000 years. This all comes off as political or quasi-religious because I can assure you that the author knows average people will read that headline and assume "begining of time". Hence I call bullshit.

I call bullshit on your half baked retort. How is the short precarious lives of the very few early humans relevant to greenhouse earth 2021?

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#439

Post by eloff »

noobly wrote: post #429
ManuelKiessling wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is only responsible for for so much of worldwide murders. Why trying to limit the number of murders in the US, then? It won’t change the total number of murders on the planet in a significant way.

That analogy doesn't really apply imo.. Global murder totals don't impact me like murders in America do. Similarly, climate change effects all parties, no matter their contribution. A better analogy, imo, would be something like a leaking ship, where the portion we're responsible for has a pinhole that we're debating on if/how to patch up, while other parties have gaping holes gushing in water constantly with no clea…

I object to the use of the term pinhole. Per capita the United States is one of the worst offenders. It's also up there in absolute numbers too.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#440

Post by nescioquid »

mfer wrote: post #56
lmilcin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "it's not man made" and "just a natural cycle" is easily disproven by showing historical temperatures change where it does, by pure accident, a hockey stick trick just last century. Or it would if the audience wasn't resistant to proofs altogether...

A long time ago I leaned that no one wins an argument. When it comes to choosing a side in an argument, people end up defending their side to the end. I think it can get worse when the other side is unfriendly. This is what we have today when it comes to climate stuff. It's not a conversation. It's often not polite. This has the sad effect of pushing many people we disagree with further into their position. Which is…

Recalling La Rochefoucauld, "The only orator who never fails to persuade is emotion".

I appreciate the distinction between an argument and a conversation. In a conversation, one is hopefully just as open to being persuaded as one is to persuading.

If, by arguing, we engender negative emotions in our interlocutor, we will have employed the most potent orator against ourselves.

Post reply on HN