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

Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 286 posts

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#51

Post by foofie »

rcbdev wrote: post #3

Mere ~30 years after discovering the Greenhouse Effect we managed to split the atom, harnessing heretofore unimaginable amounts of energy. Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.

> worthless climate certificates

I think that carbon offsetting is a good idea in the spirit of a glass half-full. It's unrealistic to expect the world economy to quit fossil fuels cold turkey, and a system that allows those who cannot transition to externalize their ability to reduce or eliminate emissions is a way to get close to the desired result with the constraints we have right now.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#52

Post by dougmwne »

I worked in climate policy for awhile. I got out of it because I lost hope. I believe our governments have lost hope also. Covid taught us that if they inflict the necessary pain to control carbon, our governments will be consumed by populist anger. Only the Chinese system appears to have any hope of controlling people’s behavior that much without riots. And what a terrifying system! Even their control began to slip after a few years of zero Covid.

We will just have to deal with the consequences while we try to innovative our way out of this mess. It’s made me a AI accelerationist. Of the two civilizational dooms, I’ll take my chances with the computers.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#54

Post by foofie »

rcbdev wrote: post #42
richrichie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy. > We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators. What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment.…

> What we should make illegal is for countries that (...)

Your comment is self-contradicting. If you expect solutions to work at a democratic level, you cannot advocate for a solution where a random third-party is able to force it's will upon any country. For instance, where do you fit in your mental model a scenario where a democratic country decides via referendum to meet all it's energy needs with coal?

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#55

Post by graemep »

ben_w wrote: post #44
Throw494955 wrote: post #38

[flagged]

"""In a speech in 2002, Crichton coined the term "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" to describe the phenomenon of experts reading articles within their fields of expertise and finding them to be error-ridden and full of misunderstanding, but seemingly forgetting those experiences when reading articles in the same publications written on topics outside of their fields of expertise, which they believe to be credible.""" https:…

> Newspapers may have said that, scientists did not, and would not have done

True, but most people's information to access about the issue is from the media. Most people do not have subscriptions to journals, or any decent subsitute.

Media reports also quote scientists, so while the GP's claim is incorrect and exaggerated, there have been plenty of badly wrong predictions in the media that do quote scientists - e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20100212233059/http://www.indepe...

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#56

Post by oever »

tjhill wrote: post #45
nojs wrote: post #9

Some other fun “x is closer to y than z”: * We are closer in time to the T rex than the T rex was to the Stegosaurus * We are closer to the time of Cleopatra than Cleopatra was to the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza

xkcd for the xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1393/

The first XKCD was published closer to the release of the original Doom than to the present day.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#57

Post by krisoft »

boppo1 wrote: post #46
rcbdev wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy. > We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators. What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment.…

>illegal is for countries You can be the first to go fight those wars. There's no 'illegal for countries'.

There is internal change. We can all take our own countries to account and drive the change we want to.

That is how we can achieve the same with no war.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#58

Post by rcbdev »

boppo1 wrote: post #46
rcbdev wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy. > We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators. What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment.…

>illegal is for countries You can be the first to go fight those wars. There's no 'illegal for countries'.

For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws.

> You can be the first to go fight those wars.

At the end of the day, a public agency can only act on the basis of laws in their respective country. (Principle of Legality) How national laws are passed however is sometimes influenced through supranational organizations - entirely without the need of a war.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#59

Post by rcbdev »

foofie wrote: post #54
rcbdev wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal. In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy. > We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators. What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment.…

> What we should make illegal is for countries that (...) Your comment is self-contradicting. If you expect solutions to work at a democratic level, you cannot advocate for a solution where a random third-party is able to force it's will upon any country. For instance, where do you fit in your mental model a scenario where a democratic country decides via referendum to meet all it's energy needs with coal?

It entirely depends on who you think "we" is in "we should make X illegal".

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#60

Post by hgomersall »

richrichie wrote: post #33
rcbdev wrote: post #3

Mere ~30 years after discovering the Greenhouse Effect we managed to split the atom, harnessing heretofore unimaginable amounts of energy. Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.

[flagged]

Do you think debate by those that advocate change should be restricted to those that are willing to fully embrace the limiting case of the proposed change? Don't you think that would limit debate somewhat?
Post reply on HN