Live data from Hacker News

Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

nationalgeographic.com

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating​ it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

Not really. The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them. There is no other option other than to move to a post-carbon economy and for it to be renewables all the way. You will die out and new people will come along with different energy demands. They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things…

The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them.

Wait, I thought we were blaming The Millennials (tm) for everything.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating​ it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

Not really. The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them. There is no other option other than to move to a post-carbon economy and for it to be renewables all the way. You will die out and new people will come along with different energy demands. They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things…

> They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things like shopping or bringing up a family, but the Dutch do it.

Unfortunately you lost nearly all your credibility by using the Dutch as a positive example. The Dutch economy is overwhelmingly based on the extraction, production, and export of natural gas, chemicals, and fuel [1]. This doesn't seem environmentally friendly to me.

No matter what law you pass or what incentive you give, recent college grads (I'm a liberal from Berkeley, myself) will find a way to maximize my utility at the expense of the environment. Corporations do this and so do millions of people around the world. Even the Dutch are not immune.

If you want to truly save the environment, go work in battery science and solar production. Because right now, even in HN's beloved Scandinavian countries​, oil and gas remains their number one industries. The Norwegians especially know this and are milking it for all it's worth. How will you convince them if you can't convince me - someone not distracted by the billions of dollars involved with oil and gas drilling?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Netherlands

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#63
post #29
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring…

I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.

> Only new facts will do the trick

It's not about information.

> Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.

That's more like it. In other words, until something is personal people have a very hard time relating to it, no matter how irrefutably true it is.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating​ it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

Not really. The baby boomer generation are going to die off and take their miserly attitudes with them. There is no other option other than to move to a post-carbon economy and for it to be renewables all the way. You will die out and new people will come along with different energy demands. They might be happy to get about Dutch style, on a bicycle. To most Americans that mode of transport is unthinkable for things…

I don't like blaming one generation or another. What happens is that people age and as they age they shift their political stance. Another important differentiator is whether they have children or not.

As for the Dutch, yes, we have a lot of bicycles and people tend to get a bit more exercise here but there is still plenty wrong with Dutch society and if you took a 10 km altitude photograph of the country you'd probably still conclude the dominant life form is a steel box on wheels.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#65
post #29
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring…

I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.

TL;DR - skip straight to [1]

> I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone

It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1].

> Only new facts will do the trick

Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first.

A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important.

To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression

[3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas.

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#66
post #53
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'You're basically claiming they found evidence disproving a link with the "don't link the event to climate change."' No I am not. But by default I would assume all such events (really every event on earth) are somehow linked to climate change... it is exceptional to me that they claim to have no evidence for this. Edit: Isn't it interesting that everyone except them (who are the apparent experts here) seems to have…

This comes up a lot in climate discussions. There's a record hurricane or heat wave, but these things happen randomly so there's no way to say definitively that one particular event would not have happened without climate change. But we do know that overall, climate change causes stronger hurricanes and hotter heat waves. In the same way, we know smoking causes lung cancer, but if you're a smoker who gets lung cancer…

Science is hard; let's go shopping.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#67
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating​ it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring…

As a pundit I read says, "when those in charge start acting like it's a crisis, I'll believe in the crisis."

When you see government officials and Hollywood high-rollers flying in private chartered airplanes to exotic locations for climate change conferences telling the rest of us how we should live, it's hard to think of it as a real crisis.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#68
post #50
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can trace the widespread notions in the Republican party that the government cannot ever do anything correctly, and should be feared when it tries, to this quote: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan No no, don't believe in auditing, and ethics, and holding officials accountable with voting, and when necessary prosecutions. Just be sca…

The Republican Party capitalizes on that perception but doesn't create it. America's governments are remarkably inept at doing even basic things. I just got back from Tokyo, where my 45 minute train ride from the airport arrived downtown within a minute of schedule. Meanwhile, the D.C. metro segment of my commute runs at best 20% over scheduled time. That's despite being one of the most expensive systems in the world…

The question to me is why is this the case? What makes American government particularly disfunctional and how can that be fixed? I don't really have any answers.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating​ it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.

So, now that we are over the "there's no climate change" phase, the "humans aren't responsible" phase and the "it's not that bad, we'll adapt or there might be good things coming out of it" phase it is the "scientists are responsible because they couldn't convince me" phase. What a time to be alive.

More like "political solutions to scientific problems are unlikely given the high incidence of graft and rent seeking".

Look at the construction of the Tappan Zee bridge near New York City, cost of construction and how long it took. Then look at estimates for its replacement.

Re: Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start

#70
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can trace the widespread notions in the Republican party that the government cannot ever do anything correctly, and should be feared when it tries, to this quote: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan No no, don't believe in auditing, and ethics, and holding officials accountable with voting, and when necessary prosecutions. Just be sca…

That perception is _much_ older than Reagan. Back in 1866 we have: > No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. (Gideon Tucker), and it was hardly a brand-new notion then. The fact is that government, even democratic government, puts its needs and desires first. To the extent that this matches up with the needs and desires of the people it's governing, things are good. To the ex…

>No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

That's obscure and it's also being taken out of context [1]. What I said, was "widespread notion in the Republican party" I do mean contemporary, this is not an exhaustive search or maybe I'd go back to the Magna Carte.

>The fact is that government, even democratic government, puts its needs and desires first.

Really, it's a fact? You have a citation for this fact? I haven't heard of such a thing in democracies, that's rather fundamentally the opposite of what they're about. Perhaps you're confused about the distinction between government and bureaucracy?

Anyway the small government advocacy pretty much amounts to whining for being on the losing end of the stick by people with failed ideas or failed representation. And the idea that democracy doesn't help terribly much I think is deeply ignorant of when and why it fails: being selectively non-democratic. Top on that list I'd but ethnic discrimination (racism) and misogyny. Anywhere those are protected, democracy is under threat.

The Articles of Confederation prescribed such a weak central government, that it was pointless and a failure, and thus scraped in favor of the current one.

The current constitution, prescribes a more powerful central government, but also incorporated and institutionalized racism to appease a certain local (regional) advocacy. Upons that compromise coming under threat, the "state's rights" types came back out of the woodwork, and then ~650,000 people died. See Yugoslavia for another example of democracy + racism = not really a democracy now, is it?

This local advocacy continued on in the U.S. with things like local school boards emphasizing and deemphasizing pesky things called facts, in order to avoid troubling local sensitivities, and ensuring a nation can have different ideas about how history and science have transpired.

Kansas, a real life experiment in less central government and more local government. Total failure. Only governor Christ Christie is less popular than Brownback.

[1] Gideon was criticizing the lawyer for not realizing the law had changed. It is a quote of a quote. What Gideon wrote was: The error arose from want of diligent watchfulness in respect to legislative changes. He did not remember that it might be necessary to look at the statutes of the year before. Perhaps he had forgotten the saying, that “no man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”

Post reply on HN