231–240 of 254 posts
I can just say, I wish you well young man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2c seems pretty bad. I guess 5 means no coral reefs, smaller rivers, smaller Antarctica. Permanent northwest passage is a consolation prize, I guess.
6 degrees renders large areas of the topics uninhabitable by humans. As in: extended periods where 100% humidity + outside temperature above human body temperature. On any given day, absent technology, this will kill you in a matter of hours. Indonesia (100+ million people) is a climate area that would experience this).
I myself have been camping in the Mojave for several days at a time with temperatures high above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Are you implying that the combination of heat and humidity is the deadly combination? If so, can you provide some evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6 degrees renders large areas of the topics uninhabitable by humans. As in: extended periods where 100% humidity + outside temperature above human body temperature. On any given day, absent technology, this will kill you in a matter of hours. Indonesia (100+ million people) is a climate area that would experience this).
I'm sorry, but I need to question the validity of this claim. People have been living in very warm climates for a very long time. I myself have been camping in the Mojave for several days at a time with temperatures high above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Are you implying that the combination of heat and humidity is the deadly combination? If so, can you provide some evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the effects of rising sea-levels alone will be pretty bad in our lifetime. For the good portion of people that live in reality, and not a sci-fi world that doesn't exist or they'll never be able to afford, a rise in global temperatures is a bad thing.
The real problems are a) Redirected despair - liberals' despair over the Republican election victory has been redirected to AGW. Some are now convinced them that the world will be underwater within the next two elections. b) Lack of imagination - AGW has become a religion: to question any aspect of AGW or to propose new alternatives or new solutions is instantly interpreted as charlatanism. Minds are doctrinally set…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like the Wizard of Oz of climate change - Hansen is an outright alarmist. I'm afraid my mad-hatter friend (whom I posted of earlier) has been reading Hansen's book with all critical faculties disabled.
I hoped that on hacker news folks would provide a reason for why his research/conclusions are wrong, rather than simply offer up character attacks. Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
- that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and
- that such a person would be willing to educate you here.
You might try
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F
or
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you listening to yourself?
> I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio. Please explain to me why people are denying Sandy Hook was a real event? They also deny things like this happen: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/11/the-3-a... http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hoped that on hacker news folks would provide a reason for why his research/conclusions are wrong, rather than simply offer up character attacks. Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
It is a mistake to believe - that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and - that such a person would be willing to educate you here. You might try http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism
When it does speak to the science (the first result refutes a 1988 paper), it seems a quick validation shows that his predications were not correct in 2010 when the article was written, but his prediction is inline with current temperatures reported.
So, yeh, I did look into this already, and haven't found a good critique. So, rather than blindly repeat claims that Hansen is wrong or an alarmist, I urge you to critically read the topic before spreading others lies further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting thei…
> I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting th…
If the numbers were different we could marginalize these people. But the numbers aren't different and it doesn't help that generally speaking liberals tend not to vote in off elections. So the problem is even worse. Marginalizing will blow back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt This is a very arrogant assumption. Our species is one component of a little-understood web of interconnected dependencies. Just because humans are slightly more clever than past dominant species doesn't make us any less extinction-proof.
I'm guess you meant that cleverness doesn't make us any more extinction-proof. But actually it does. Cleverness is a huge advantage in the survival game.
Cleverness is a huge advantage in the survival game.
Edit: one way humans will extinctionize our species:
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-categorize-earth-to...
We're basically driving this car full speed towards the cliff. No amount of cleverness will stop this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt This is a very arrogant assumption. Our species is one component of a little-understood web of interconnected dependencies. Just because humans are slightly more clever than past dominant species doesn't make us any less extinction-proof.
I'm guess you meant that cleverness doesn't make us any more extinction-proof. But actually it does. Cleverness is a huge advantage in the survival game.