Live data from Hacker News

For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

theconversation.com

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#21

What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…

What mitigations are there that do not target greenhouse gas emissions, how could those be simpler or cheaper than what we already know to do? Serious question!

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#22

Considering the period of concern over global cooling (from last century), claims of "we've known this, but have pretended not to for a hundred years" are just historical revisionism. When you lie about facts in favor of pushing a "more important truth" you don't convince people. You just give people more reason to doubt other things you're claiming.

Combined with the apocalyptic histrionics of "we've only got ten more years before it's too late forever, we have to do something now!" And that something being banning lawn mowers...

"Just don't talk about nuclear power, it's yucky, we're way past that and on to renewables + unspecified future quantum leaps in battery technology + a complete, multi-decade revamp in how our grid operates, mkay?"

(Also known as the 'environmentalist' take on tackling climate change)

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#23
Sadly the fact that it HAS been written about for so long just fuels the fire (no pun intended) for the sceptics.

Something I often hear when trying to talk to people who refuse to believe the impact we have: "See these domsday prophets have been ranting about this for over a century and we're still here enjoying life!"

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#25

What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…

Humanity hasn't been good at multigenerational projects for some time.

Generally it seems those kind of concerted efforts are more easily accomplished under dictatorships rather than in democracies.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#27

What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…

Humanity hasn't been good at multigenerational projects for some time.

Well if I've learned anything from the tech industry,maybe we need more Scrum Masters in politics /s

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#29
post #10

I heard the latest ice age was rough too

Oh, for sure. A sudden ice age would definitely ruin global civilization. But that's not the issue, and the opposite of an ice age, a rapid period of warming with huge disruptions to ecosystems, is not good either. It's almost like huge disruptions to ecosystems is the problem and independent from the red team/blue team political polarization culture-war horseshit.

No it is not much about the rate of disruption, the end state we are aiming at will be painful and not much would adapt even if it would be 1000 years?! That it happens so quickly within one generation and is caused by us is icing on top..

It seems we had 5 mass extinction events on earth so far, one caused by an asteroid, and the 4 others by climate change. Sure, something will survive, regrow or be newly created.. if we go for 4°C expectations for earth to recover on its own to something similar we had now are just another 30 million years ;)

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#30

It was very eye opening to see how many groups and individuals who "just want to have a debate" on the reality of climate change are funded by fossil fuel companies[1][2][3][4]. We are being lied to, and it's working. Just see the first few comments in reply to this article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-d... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUST... [3] http…

Your first link claims Koch Industries is "a little-known, privately owned US oil company". That's the sort of lie you've got to expect from the Guardian. Quoting Wikipedia:

"Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/) is an American privately held multinational conglomerate corporation based in Wichita, Kansas and is the second-largest privately held company in the United States, after Cargill.[2] Its subsidiaries are involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizer, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, cloud computing, finance, commodity market trading, and investments. Koch owns Flint Hills Resources, Georgia-Pacific, Guardian Industries, Infor, Invista, KBX, Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, Koch Engineered Solutions, Koch Investments Group, Koch Minerals & Trading, and Molex. The firm employs 122,000 people in 60 countries, with about half of its business in the United States"

The Guardian states that the Koch brothers aren't directly funding climate related stuff, but they do fund libertarian and conservative groups. This is, in their eyes, immoral.

Is it terrible for wealthy billionaires to fund people with particular perspectives on what to do about the climate? If you believe so then your biggest criticism must be in the other direction, because the money flows to support pro-doom climate journalism are vast. The Gates Foundation literally directly gives money to news companies that can only be used to hire people to write about climate and vaccines (in his preferred direction). Amongst the recipients of Gates' largesse is, of course, the Guardian.

https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu...

"I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups."

Post reply on HN