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

A stunning year in climate science

climateprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#11

Post by othello »

KevinMS wrote: post #2

Hysterical website brought to you by Center for American Progress. From their website Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. addendum: for those confused, this is political advocacy and its probably not a good idea to po…

Given that most of the article is made of highlights from 10 scientific articles published in such high profile reviews as Nature, Science, or Nature Geoscience, I do not think you can reduce it to "political advocacy" from a "hysterical website".

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#12

Post by ErrantX »

guelo wrote: post #10
[deleted] wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

How are links to respected science journals "hysterical, scare mongering, idiocy"?

There is nothing wrong with the science, I just find this specific presentation of them extreme and off putting. Particularly the use of words like "catastrophe" and "gravest threat" etc.

The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary.

I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that this is a well concluded blog post. Instead I think it is very political and probably unhelpful.

There clearly is an issue with the media focusing on Climategate, I don't think this is a successful way to raise that. And I maintain the tone of the piece is breathy and hysterical.

Not good.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#13

Post by mmphosis »

Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe: “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

I look away from the glow of this noisy MacBook, and ponder how foolish I am to be typing this on a computer that in only a few distant years from now will no longer work. I know that global ocean temperatures have been rising steadily for the past 100 hundred years -- this is based on maps of world ocean temperatures displayed to the public in the lobby of an Ocean Sciences building that I was able to view years ago.

Yes, Number 1 http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-p... is stunning. Don't stay stunned for too much longer.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#14

Post by robryan »

Sure maybe this like many other sources sensationalizes things but one of the problems with climate is that I just can't see worldwide action until either it is right in governments faces ie. to late, or they are drawn in my sensationalist tones on correct science.

Climate is one of those things that governments will be able to wash there hands of if everything turns bad, because no one can be 100% sure of causes and the whole climate gate thing the article was referring to.

I don't really expect any drastic action as unless every country acts those who don't will have a big trading advantage, at least in the short term.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#15

Post by nodata »

mmphosis wrote: post #13

Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe: “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.” I look away from the glow of this noisy MacBook, and ponder how foolish I am to be typing this on a computer that in only a few distant years from now will no longer work. I know that global oce…

But if we're stunned and apathetic we don't need to do anything.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#16

Post by joelmichael »

KevinMS wrote: post #2

Hysterical website brought to you by Center for American Progress. From their website Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. addendum: for those confused, this is political advocacy and its probably not a good idea to po…

The argument that "HN is not Reddit" is one that should be taken seriously. Yes, there are some political links on HN unrelated to the tech industry or entrepreneurialism that have been interesting and fostered good discussion. The question is, how do we separate the good stuff from the tired propaganda?

First of all, any political link that uses sensationalism should probably be avoided.

Second, rehashing of an old issue everyone knows about already (like global warming, or the federal deficit) isn't particularly useful.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#17

Post by c1sc0 »

brennannovak wrote: post #5

I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!

Some would welcome an existential threat to humanity as an opportunity to innovate our way out of this mess. Right now, we lack a common goal & survival tends to be a strong motivator. We can't go back to the woods, but maybe we can build a habitat that includes some woods & maybe some species that are required for human survival. Think about it as building a Minimum Viable Planet. Now that is a startup.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#18

Post by nodata »

brennannovak wrote: post #5

I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!

I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing.

Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#19

Post by arethuza »

brennannovak wrote: post #5

I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!

If I was being absolutely honest - the first thing I do when I see any maps about climate change is check what the predicated changes are for my location.

The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.

Re: A stunning year in climate science

#20

Post by getonit »

ErrantX wrote: post #12
guelo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are links to respected science journals "hysterical, scare mongering, idiocy"?

There is nothing wrong with the science, I just find this specific presentation of them extreme and off putting. Particularly the use of words like "catastrophe" and "gravest threat" etc. The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary. I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that thi…

Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.
Post reply on HN