Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThomPete | Hacker News Reader

Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?

50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.

Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die?

People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature.

Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions.

We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected.

So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either.

It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods.

This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.

I feel like I need to weigh in here: You're taking this a bit too far. I didn't mean to imply anywhere that nothing needs to be done about climate change. I think it is essential that we do, and demanding "evidence that billions will die" is to my mind perhaps being purposely deaf to the reality of the situation as it is and will be.

"Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above

ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to impossible standards and then complaining that they're not met.

I have no idea what they mean "If someone want to convince me...they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change...won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now." .. "There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes"

A shortage of what?! One is supposed to demonstrate the future somehow, or give a deductive proof, or something? What would count as evidence that events predicted by scientists will occur? I'm not sure. Nothing, it seems.

It seems any prediction or forecast about almost anything can equally be called 'certainly not scientific', 'politics masquaraded as science', 'speculations...not scientifically demonstrated' etc etc.

I guess the probability of asteroids hitting the earth is independent of the stuff happening here, of human plans and actions, so can't similarly be accused of being politics in disguise. But most issues on this planet - all the other ones I can think of - aren't of that kind.

One is supposed to at least entertain the idea that there is no consensus about "the sky is falling" claims we see in the media and pushed by politicians.

So no I am not holding anything to impossible standards I am simply saying that currently none of the consequences of climate change are things we can't deal with.

And yes predictions or forecast about almost anything can equally be called not scientific which would be a welcome change compared to the discussion we have today where bogus claims like "i believe in science" or "97% of scientists" agree are being used as ways to shut down any dissent from the catastrophist interpretation of the actual data.

I think you are missing the point here.

The question isn't whether we should do something but what we should do.

The catastrophist claims basically opens up for a lot of really really expensive and ultimately useless solutions.

As an example wind and solar which isn't even providing 1% of the worlds energy consumption yet touted as the great savior.

When "the sky is falling" claims are going mainstream that opens up for almost any extreme solution no matter the cost.

Of course we should do something about fossil fuels if nothing else for the pollution, but we already are and that's good enough compared to what the demonstrated consequences of Climate change is.

I'm not sure why you're so against any sort of action here, but I am sure that that attitude is part of the reason we should be worried.

Why are you assuming I want to force solar and wind? What if I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power? What if I don't have a solution. What if I'm just trying to point out that we're in trouble.

"It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods."

Can you explain this fully. What specifically are you planning we do? How will that correlate to the rise in global temperatures.

I know this is xkcd but I think it's pretty effective at conveying what we're up against: https://xkcd.com/1732/

I am not against any sort of action. I am just not for overinvesting in inferior products like solar and wind and claiming the sky is falling as if we are doomed if we don't go to some sort of extreme. We don't need governments to pick winners it's a waste of resources. We need them to state what criteria energy production should meet. That's how you do things rationally and with your head rather than your emotions.

I could ask you another question. How far are you ready to go? Are you going to war with China over coal? With India? Are you going to hinder developing countries from using fossil fuels?

If you really believe it's catastrophic then drastic measures are going to be needed not just feel good things like going vegan and saying "i believe in climate change"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com