Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeyouse | Hacker News Reader

At least China is at least giving lip service to caring about CO2 reductions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/30/china-car...

Every single Republican candidate for president was openly mocking Obama when he was in Paris a few months ago for the climate talks. They're an absolute embarrassment:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republicans-obama-clim...

View on HN

So many people point to politicians as the problem, but remember the people who keep them in power. Politicians are just people who play the numbers, which is exactly how a republic is supposed to operate.

Yes that's correct and it works assuming the population is accurately informed. There's been a huge propoganda push against the idea of human caused climate change. And it's largely worked. I'm sure many of the politicians even believe it.

I think it has a lot more to do with moneyed interests who would lose out on climate-change regulation than with a tremendous bloc of voters who will not support a candidate who believes climate change is real.

This might show that the Chinese government is more politically savvy than US Republicans, which is disappointing but hardly a surprise. :-)

It does not show that the Chinese government is actually going to change anything substantive.

Saying ISIS is a bigger threat to the global world than climate change is....embarrassing? Innocent people are being blown up and their heads are being cut off at this instant because of ISIS. They are committing a genocide at this very minute.

How many people per year would you estimate ISIS kills?

Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die right now as a result of climate change. And the number is expected to go up to 250,000 by 2030-2050 [2].

Other estimates have been even higher, e.g. [3] which came up with 400,000 extra deaths due to climate change per year already.

[1] http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

[2] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/climate-cha...

And yet, with the record levels of climate emissions, billions of people are living longer and healthier due to cheaper energy costs that keep them warm and fed at low cost.

Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me?

ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.

Isis getting a nuke is quite far fetched. What is a bigger danger is one of the terrorist groups in Pakistan (which actually has nuclear weapons) getting a nuke. Or India & Pakistan having a nuclear exchange. Or one of the wars in the Middle East leading to Israel or the USA to use the nuclear weapons they have ready there (which they continually threaten). Nuclear war is one of the scariest things we face and could destroy us instantly, it's a small chance but a possibility.

However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.

>>> ... "which they continually threaten"

Can you cite an instance in any reputable broadsheet where Israel has officially threatened to use nuclear weapons?

Misstatements not challenged quickly, too often become the "truth".

Actually since Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret they are not continually threatening to use them, however the US is a different story. There are US nuclear weapons present in every war and the threats are made with statements like, "no option is off the table", and by looking at official policy, which maintains the option of a first nuclear strike.

Thanks for the links. I'll read them later in full. Off the bat: “That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency.” May being the keyword there. Also, if the argument is more rainfall and temperatures contributing to spread of disease, does it estimate the ability to harvest more, or for longer periods in cooler climates? Not to belittle the warnings and data presented, but to look for the positive in the negative.

The GP poster is right--the threat to the average person from terrorism, from all sources, is tiny compared to, say, the risk due to extreme weather....or getting hit by a bus when crossing the street. Humans don't tend to respond rationally to fear, and tend to over exaggerate the risks of shocking things like death from terrorism. It is so common that some people came up with the idea of micromorts, so that one can reliably compare risks of unrelated items. Terrorism results in pretty tiny micromorts compared to, say, getting stuck by lightening.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

250k and 400k would still be a long way off the current top 10: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

The places most affected by climate change already have terrible health: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortal...

ISIS is terrible, but it's a local problem, not a global one.

Also, it's not a problem that threatens the continued existence of human life on Earth.

I've seen zero evidence, even with the most extreme climate models, that human existance is threatened.

Saying stuff like that feeds right into the deniers.

I did exaggerate, sorry. There is some credible possibility of this happen, but our current models don't predict it. [1] I think it is fair to say that climate change could be very disruptive to civilization. Eg, it could cause famines, refugee crises, collapse of some societies, etc.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426608/how-likely-is-a-ru...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com