21–30 of 429 posts
[flagged]
No it's the frog boil effect. It's a staggering amount of change, it's just over a whole human lifetime so most people don't really clock it. Elites are supposed to do something about it, but mostly because of corruption and ideology they aren't.
[flagged]
Would it be more scientific to say it is sure it will happen? I suspect the opposite is happening, too many times an environmental catastrophe has been predicted in too certain terms and has not happened, which is why many people lost trust. And if you think that we shouldn't try to predict but only inform about what has already happened that seems even stranger to me.
Note that the general sentiment on HN when it comes to other topics is that every slight simplification in reporting on science is unforgivable, Gell-Mann-amnesia-effect, bla bla...
For example, it is clickbait to say "cancer" instead of "some types of cancer which we further need to specify" in headline.
But it is of course impossible to take scientists seriously when their results are reported as "they observed X, and are there are indications that it could mean Y".
Who says "could"? It's way too risky to engage with people who don't tell me exactly what to think!
Could we put underwater data centers there to reheat the waters?
[flagged]
[flagged]
And yet millions of people still play the lottery. I don’t think it’s as simple as uncertainty. Nobody wants to change their lifestyle to avert climate change. People prefer carrots to sticks.
So absent something enforcing prohibition of defection from a collective action, the collective action doesn't happen.
You want to actually solve the problem? Find such an enforcement mechanism (CO2 tariffs, perhaps), reduce the cost of solution (sufficiently cheap non-fossil energy), or find another solution that doesn't require global cooperation (albedo modification, say).
A solution that just requires everyone to get along and cooperate to their marginal net detriment doesn't seem like it will work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be more scientific to say it is sure it will happen? I suspect the opposite is happening, too many times an environmental catastrophe has been predicted in too certain terms and has not happened, which is why many people lost trust. And if you think that we shouldn't try to predict but only inform about what has already happened that seems even stranger to me.
All is good. until it’s not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be more scientific to say it is sure it will happen? I suspect the opposite is happening, too many times an environmental catastrophe has been predicted in too certain terms and has not happened, which is why many people lost trust. And if you think that we shouldn't try to predict but only inform about what has already happened that seems even stranger to me.
It's a refusal to engage with the reported information, not an argument. Note that the general sentiment on HN when it comes to other topics is that every slight simplification in reporting on science is unforgivable, Gell-Mann-amnesia-effect, bla bla... For example, it is clickbait to say "cancer" instead of "some types of cancer which we further need to specify" in headline. But it is of course impossible to take s…
Meh who cares? Let it all burn and flood. Earth gets a fresh start, and hopefully whatever "intelligent" species evolves to be dominant in the next 5-10 million years is a better custodian. Rinse and repeat until that's the case. Heck, who knows if this is actually the 1st or 100th iteration...
[flagged]