11–20 of 29 posts
You have to include a provocative title that excites the newer HN members. Rename the article "How race/gender/class sees irreversible climate change" and re-submit it.
I think this is a joke but I don't get it... could you explain please?
- Most major governments are ineffective, if not corrupt. - We put almost no resources into educating our children. - It's pretty clear we've broken the planet (or are breaking it fast) - The masses are confused, and feel helpless. - The world economy appears to have been subjugated by central banks. - Our food is progressively getting more toxic. - Corporations (in general) have scraped together too much power. - It's 2014 - this is not the world we had dreamed of, it's lame, inefficient and generally run by emotionally immature, tiresome, short sighted people. - Many people have given up at some level.
OP your point is valid, but I think (in some way) some of us are just thinking 'f-- it, let it roll, we deserve it'
Disclaimer: I have not given up, I think things will get better - perhaps naive
Part of your problem is probably that it's not really news. Pretty much everyone knows that climate change is happening and that we should be doing something about it (not that that translates to much action). The IPCC keep publishing reports like this mainly in an effort win over 'skeptics'.
Its so predictable, futuretimeline.net published the story a few years ago: http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2014.htm#ipcc
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20121227101314/http://www.futuret...
Depending on who you ask: - Most major governments are ineffective, if not corrupt. - We put almost no resources into educating our children. - It's pretty clear we've broken the planet (or are breaking it fast) - The masses are confused, and feel helpless. - The world economy appears to have been subjugated by central banks. - Our food is progressively getting more toxic. - Corporations (in general) have scraped tog…
In context, the most recent IPCC reports confirm earlier impressions that the likely costs of climate change are relatively small compared to the benefits of economic growth over the same period whereas the cost of doing much about climate change now is much larger than the cost of doing nothing. So even if we chose to get "stirred", what would you have us do about it?
Lomborg gives a few relevant numbers here:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-sa...
Part of your problem is probably that it's not really news. Pretty much everyone knows that climate change is happening and that we should be doing something about it (not that that translates to much action). The IPCC keep publishing reports like this mainly in an effort win over 'skeptics'.
That's exactly the point (which I obviously failed to get through). The news (at least to me) is that we're past the tipping points - it is irreversible now. Plus it is not (probably) just about droughts, weird weather and rising sea levels but rather about Earth becoming like Venus.
To say "it's irreversible now" is to imply there was ever a point that it wasn't, a point at which there was something we could have done to change trends at this scale. The links you gave don't really suggest this to be the case.
BTW, David Suzuki is a fearmonger with a long history of making ridiculous unscientific doomsday claims. For instance, he claimed that a second Fukushima disaster would force evacuation of the west coast of America:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/20/david-suzuki-regrets...
So if you really want to claim the earth is likely to be "uninhabitable in only some decades" you probably want to use somebody else as a source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a joke but I don't get it... could you explain please?
[deleted]
The HN community is pretty evenly divided. People who strongly favor one ideology routinely imagine that HN favors the opposite one. They can't be right, though, because their various complaints are contradictory.
I think it's because the ideological mind feels surrounded by enemies. When it sees something that it agrees with getting downvoted, or something it disagrees with getting upvoted, it feels aggrieved and jumps to a conclusion of general bias.
It's true that comment quality has declined, but not because there's a dominant ideology. It's because larger groups are stupider.
The IPCC's job is basically to find or invent ways to claim the sky is falling and continually declare "it's worse than we thought" regardless of what the data says. They've been doing this for long enough that by now most sensible people have tuned out. In context, the most recent IPCC reports confirm earlier impressions that the likely costs of climate change are relatively small compared to the benefits of economi…
First time I hear about Lomborg. Will read later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the point (which I obviously failed to get through). The news (at least to me) is that we're past the tipping points - it is irreversible now. Plus it is not (probably) just about droughts, weird weather and rising sea levels but rather about Earth becoming like Venus.
> The news (at least to me) is that we're past the tipping points - it is irreversible now. To say "it's irreversible now " is to imply there was ever a point that it wasn't, a point at which there was something we could have done to change trends at this scale. The links you gave don't really suggest this to be the case. BTW, David Suzuki is a fearmonger with a long history of making ridiculous unscientific doomsday…
The links were selected somewhat in a haste but nevertheless you can come up with your own sources easily. Most of the "alarmists" have been warning and calling to action for decades now. For various reasons I had not read any of them for the past years which is why the irreversibility was news to me.