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

The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#191

Post by [deleted] »

downrightmike wrote: post #101
vasco wrote: post #16

> Nothing matters as much as our bone-headed, mass-suicidal march toward extreme-weather oblivion. Not COVID-19, not the invasion of Ukraine, not even “The Godfather.” Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war. Maybe go to…

Why do you think russia invaded Ukraine? Ukraine was working with Shell oil to extract vast oil deposits that are only able to be reached with modern tech. If they got that oil, it would make them the 14th largest oil state in the world. Ukraine also happens to be the main pipeline the USSR sold through. Ukraine, when it gets that oil will be able to side step russia and sell to Europe. Also of importance is that the…

[deleted]

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#192

Post by drewcoo »

all2 wrote: post #124
goodgoblin wrote: post #82

I'm sorry, but this is utterly unhinged. There is no evidence of weather patterns of any kind, much less indications that we are about to face "extreme-weather". What caused the weather which led to the dust-bowl? What caused the ice-age? The climate of the earth has changed for millions of years w/o humans, and while certainly greenhouse gases impact the current trends, they aren't cause for apocalyptic concern. I r…

The dust-bowl wasn't specifically weather, it was farming practices (and apparently a drought). > The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the phenomenon. from Wikipedia

And the draining of aquifers more so than climate change, makes the dust bowl more and more likely to happen again.

https://theconversation.com/farmers-are-depleting-the-ogalla...

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#193

Post by egberts1 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #188
egberts1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did say “some” but LA Times too did chime in with The Guardians (UK). https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-2...

You said "these are some of..." not "some of these are...". "X1, X2, X3 are some of Y" means that {X1, X2, X3} is a subset of Y. "Some of X1, X2, X3 are Y" means that {X1, X2, X3} intersects Y. But you said the former!

Smart Aleck!

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#194

Post by egberts1 »

chimprich wrote: post #173
egberts1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say LA Times did all of those headlines? Nope.

Yes, that's exactly what you claimed. > Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations:

My XOR logic chip needs replacing.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#195

Post by egberts1 »

InitialLastName wrote: post #177
egberts1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(yawn). It’s a pet project of mine and a fun one at that (of many hobbies).

One might think you would also have sources to reference any of these articles (given it's your "hobby") but you're curiously silent when people point out most of these articles never got written.

The bandwidth is being spent toward making a web page of my news clippings.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#196

Post by plaguepilled »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #146
plaguepilled wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate crisis coalesces wealth inequality, war tension, national resources, economy, and a host of other pressing current issues. It is trivial to find the link to each of these topics. I mean this respectfully, but there is absolutely no way a nation can 'over-allocate' to the climate crisis. Please provide a precise example or retract your claim. Edit: I'm getting a lot of down votes for this comment but not a…

Anything that causes a backslide to the point people are burning more fossil fuels would be an over allocation. So would any attempt to pull so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that caused a mass green plant die-off. It is possible to overshoot the problem. It seems improbable, but we could overshoot.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand the objection but I have a follow up question: are these hypothetical overshoots realistically possible? With the rate we enact change now, is it even possible to get 'slightly overshot' without opposing interests jumping all over it?

(This is not a rhetorical question: I'm not sure one way or another, though my expectation is that it isn't possible)

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#197

Post by roenxi »

dorchadas wrote: post #97
roenxi wrote: post #4

There is currently some chance - possibly single digit percentages - that the northern hemisphere will dissolve in a nuclear fireball and the rest of us will freeze in a long sub-zero nuclear winter. The sort of people who suggest we should only talk about the climate are dangerously foolish. Priority 1 is peace, priority 2 is prosperity (which helps keep the peace). Those two issues take priority over the climate, w…

If you don't fix the climate issues, neither of those priorities will be met.

Possibly, but there is little doubt to work that out first we will have to talk about them as issues.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#198

Post by gwbas1c »

civilized wrote: post #183
gwbas1c wrote: post #182

The problem is so deep, even I don't understand it. All I can say is that when we can get Republicans to stop denying climate change, and work with Democrats on the issue, they will figure out how to solve it very quickly. --- I went to a debate between a well-established Republican, Randy Hunt, (who was rumored to replace Senator Warren if she was picked for VP,) and a first-time running Democrat. The Democrat's res…

Makes sense at one level, but I wonder if partisan voting patterns overwhelm the potential positive contribution of any one Republican. I genuinely don't know here.

I wonder how Ted Cruz and other Texan politicians are going to behave with Tesla in their state? One thing I noticed in their Cyber Rodeo is that Elon said, "sustainable energy" and never mentioned "climate change."
Post reply on HN