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

IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#61

Post by jacquesm »

CalRobert wrote: post #59
logancg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious: if you think so much about climate change and its effects, and even plan your actions and location around it, have you considered directing your energy to combatting climate change with your skills on a systemic level? (For example, building sustainability companies, being part of climate activism, earning-to-donate?) I'm in a similar spot but optimistic about systemic action.

tl;dr I got tired of people saying I was "lucky" that I could ride a bike to work and made a tool to help them do the same thing. It shows flats for rent on a map with transport and bike routes instead of roads. https://www.gaffologist.com/ (Ireland-only) Sorry if it sounds like a plug but it's the best answer I have to your question. I studied physics in college and hoped it would help me work on energy efficiency o…

Super neat, and cool to see you act.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#62

Post by stephengillie »

stephengillie wrote: post #8
lancewiggs wrote: post #2

Nothing is more important than getting our reaction to climate change right. It’s so frustrating that so few genuinely helpful companies are emerging out of our ecosystem. We can and must do better. And quickly.

Driving safely is more important than climate change. Don't phone and drive.

The community response to this is very telling.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#63

Post by jacquesm »

DennisP wrote: post #39
Simon_says wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the worst case scenario, global warming will not annihilate the human species. AI, nanotechnology, weaponized bioweapons, nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or alien contact could all potentially wipe out humanity.

If nine billion people have to compete for enough food to feed one billion people, it won't be surprising if some nukes fly.

Then 8 billion people will have to compete for enough food to feed half a billion people.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#65

Post by rotw »

lazyjones wrote: post #52
rotw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, What gives you the right to all that at the direct expense of the people who can't afford it?

The right of the stronger, fitter. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care?

> The right of the stronger, fitter.

Right, so why don't I just come along and murder you? I have the right, by your logic.

Or, maybe, this Social Darwinism is fascist nonsense and you fully admit to being disgustingly amoral.

> I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works.

Human society is not "uncontrollable nature" or determined solely by biological evolution. Everything is a social and personal choice.

> Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care?

Really? The only reason to care about social wellbeing and people other than yourself is religion?

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#66

Post by Daishiman »

lazyjones wrote: post #26
CalRobert wrote: post #4

It always seems odd to me that people still plan their lives as though the world fifty years from now will be basically the same as now. I hope they're right, to be honest. But we're talking 3+c warming (5.4F) and that could be horrific. I guess it's nice if you want a winery in Norway but that's small comfort.

I don‘t like alarmism. Most of it is simply proven wrong in the long term. People are good at adapting most of the time. For example, I got myself air conditioning in a country famous for skiing. People in poor countries will probably suffer much more, but they need to tackle their population growth issues anyway. In essence, there are life-changing problems affecting us every day (who would have thought 50 years ago…

This is some seriously shortsighted thinking.

There's nothing you'll be able to do about oceanic anoxia, or a myriad other effects that are simply catastrophic.

Speaking of skiing, good luck when those economies collapse when the brunt of tourism goes away.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#67

Post by rotw »

Sol- wrote: post #11

I guess governments will just skip the prevention step when they realize their own inaction made that impossible and just try to find ways to adapt to the inevitable changes instead. There's pretty much no way, purely for political/human reasons, that keeping the temperatures below 2 or even 3 degrees seems feasible at that point, so humanity will just have to deal with it and adapt over the next century. Shame about…

> so humanity will just have to deal with it and adapt over the next century. Shame about the planet and the natural ecosystem, though.

I don't think you understand that efforts to prevent climate change are efforts to preserve humanity - the planet will survive in any case, and just form new ecosystems. It's us who'll be the first victims.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#68

Post by Jedi72 »

lazyjones wrote: post #52
rotw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, What gives you the right to all that at the direct expense of the people who can't afford it?

The right of the stronger, fitter. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but that‘s how nature and evolution works. Perhaps your religion preaches something else, but why should I care?

If you accept climate change is real, and accept we need to tackle the problem, the simplest and most powerful solution would be coordinated action. However, we are stuck in a prisoners dilemma, because people with your attitude will not stop, will not change, and if that is say 1/100 people then it becomes unbearable for the other 99, socially and economically, to commit to the plan.

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#69

Post by marmaduke »

tumetab1 wrote: post #7

Weird quotes from the article: > In this case, there are 86 lead authors from 39 countries, of which 39% are female. > These researchers, who are unpaid, have reviewed the available scientific literature on the feasibility, impacts and costs of staying under 1.5C. > "If one can imagine the governments holding the hands of the scientists, this means you don't know how science works!"

I found them prescient

> In this case, there are 86 lead authors from 39 countries, of which 39% are female.

speaks to diversity, e.g. it's not just a bunch of white men from a thinktank in south Florida (born there, nothing against it)

> These researchers, who are unpaid, have reviewed the available scientific literature on the feasibility, impacts and costs of staying under 1.5C.

unpaid suggest impartiality and dedication, the rest specifies the scope of their work nicely, as opposed to very unspecificed term "climate change"

> "If one can imagine the governments holding the hands of the scientists, this means you don't know how science works!"

this is over the top but the point would be it's not a bunch of lobbyists writing the report on the behalf of politicians

Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

#70

Post by marmaduke »

glenra wrote: post #58
antientropic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is weird about them?

The entire article reads like a blog post. It obviously wasn't written by a news writer or edited by a news editor - there are grammar issues and tonal issues and sourcing issues. Does the BBC now have something like the Fortune "Contributor's Network" - a group of random bloggers who get to write under their domain as if they were BBC writers, weakening the brand but bringing in more click revenue? That'd be my gues…

> The sentence structure suggests it's the countries rather than the authors who are female.

aggressive ungracious reading is borderline trolling

Post reply on HN