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

The Uninhabitable Earth

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#231

Post by dagss »

sanxiyn wrote: post #108
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #68

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. Wh…

I strongly support nuclear power, and although I kind of understand their points of view, I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

I am not against nuclear, just want to point out that while this might have been true in the past, the price decline in solar means nuclear now looses on price. (Perhaps as stable base load where hydro is not already in place...but energy storage might be cheaper than nuclear too)

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#232

Post by rhapsodic »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #229
rhapsodic wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are taking their two-faced behavior as evidence against global warming... You cannot logically conclude that based on what I wrote.

That's the clear implication from what you wrote - did you not write it to dismiss the likelihood of global warming being caused by humans, and severe?

> That's the clear implication from what you wrote

It is absolutely NOT the clear implication from what I wrote.

But while we're on the subject, do you have any theories as to why the people who wring their hands about the dire emergency that AGW supposedly is, never seem to call out rich, left-wing celebrities or rich left-wing tech moguls for their planet-destroying lifestyles?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#233

Post by joloka »

Oletros wrote: post #191
joloka wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the article is blatant fear mongering. Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems. Outside of a Hail Mary technological solution, there is only one way to reduce human activity and that is to have fewer humans.

> Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any

What am I supposed to be doing? Proving a negative or something?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#234

Post by joloka »

cbennett wrote: post #123
joloka wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.

Alright, fair enough. To be honest I also at times thought the author's alarmism went a bit far and could have scared off serious readers, but as a general principle I still don't think its valid to critique someone on a basis that is non-existent: e.g., the author at no point explicitly endorsed any of the concepts or ideas you mentioned in the GP comment.

I don't really care, I get paid by the Kochs to bash anything related to global warming. Going back to make a new account now, lol. The best part about this job is I can do it from the beach.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#235

Post by e12e »

_rpd wrote: post #120
state_machine wrote: post #93

I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

This level of impairment conflicts with data from military studies, for example ... > CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 but it is something certainly worth further investigation.

But seems to be in line with NASA findings:

https://thinkprogress.org/its-taking-less-co2-than-expected-...

Also, the general safety limit for co2 is around 5000 ppm for up to 8 hours - higher than that, and headaches and other effects will manifest.

I'm quite surprised that "no effect" could be seen at 40k ppm - I wonder if there were some limits to the cognitive tests (like the difference between proving a difficult mathematical theorem vs doing some Calculus).

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#236

Post by phkahler »

Oletros wrote: post #76
joloka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the downvote? The article is clearly concern trolling. Look, if you are worried about overpopulation, the US isn't your primary area of concern. The US is not overpopulated and probably never will be. Maybe some US cities are, but compared to China, India, and Indonesia, we have no overpopulation problem. I'm not sure that "being alarmed" is a good state of mind to be in--Americans suffer from crisis fatigue as i…

The article has nothing to do with overpopulation

ALL of our problems of this sort are due to overpopulation. That's an unfortunate truth that nobody wants to talk about.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#237

Post by Oletros »

joloka wrote: post #233
Oletros wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any

What am I supposed to be doing? Proving a negative or something?

No, you should provide examples of scientific papers saying that the problem is too much human activity.

That was your claim.

And no, asking to reduce CO2 emissions is not saying that there is too much human activity

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#238

Post by phkahler »

Oletros wrote: post #191
joloka wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the article is blatant fear mongering. Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems. Outside of a Hail Mary technological solution, there is only one way to reduce human activity and that is to have fewer humans.

> Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any

>> Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any

You're being an utter dumbass (trolling at best). The entire "debate" around climate change is based on the premise that human activity is causing it.

I agree, it's completely valid to frame it as a population problem.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#239

Post by ajmurmann »

latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

It's a tragedy of the Commons problem. I'd vote in a heart beat to make meat consumption illegal, even completely burninh the usage of fossil fuels and even to attack countries that refuse to do the same. However, if only I stop eating meat and driving my car the only thing that will happen is that my quality of life gets lowered.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#240

Post by ajmurmann »

dustinmoris wrote: post #73

Average person's priorities: I > My family > My home > My life convenience > My country > Other human beings > Planet Earth. This is what the average person expects from other people: Planet Earth > Other human beings > Their country > their family > them And you wonder why we fail to combat climate change?

Unfortunately the impact you have on any of these is in the same order as you list the priorities. That's making it so that if you prioritize planet earth over your family the only change you'll likely see is your family being less well off. That practically guaranteed inaction. That's why we need to enforce good behavior via laws not only on a national but on a global level. It's mindboggling to me that climate agreements are entirely voluntary.
Post reply on HN