What Changed My Mind About Climate Change | Hacker News Reader

What Changed My Mind About Climate Change

thebulwark.com

28 pointssmacktoward9 comments

I'm interested in this because the Cato institute along with Koch, is one of the main reasons AGW is disputed outside of the competent scientists.

Having somebody from inside the tent walk out and say why they changed their mind is informative.

its as informative as (say) a Blockchain fanatic coming up for air and saying "nope. nothing there" or a ML person saying "nope"

I found this interesting.

Obviously, its charged. I wonder if they will flip back too, but I take it on advisement.

A public commitment/mea-culpa is actually interesting.

I don’t know what to say about this except: duh. If you weren’t thinking about risk management, what were you thinking about?

Politics and graft.

Look at California, the state claims to have climate change risks, yet when they apply for bonds, this is not listed. Politicians will bend over backwards for easy political points especially if it is for a golden goose political moment, looking at Solyndra and Tesla’s buffalo plant. And if a donor gets a ton of money then win win win, still Solyndra.

The point is that you have a very sensitive issue that has politics in it that cause money to be wasted. If we are going to be honest about climate affectation then we need to be honest about solutions in the engineering profession: nuclear until fusion arrives, because renewables are not going to work from a storage perspective.

Then finally, what do we do about developing nations, if you are going to tell China “no coal plants.” Explain the enforcement procedures to solve this issue, are we willing to go to war to stop a risk versus the risk of nuclear Armageddon or societal collapse?

Exxon correctly predicted global warming and by how much in 1982 so people still making excuses about the science are being dishonest. https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-c... Very smart people predicted correctly what was going to happen but they buried it for making money. So an article about how the calculations might still be wrong or on the high side is bullshit being spread by the same people that have been denying global warming for decades. First it was the climate is not getting warmer then it was the warming is not caused by humans now it is that the calculations are wrong and the climate wont get as warm as being predicted. Oil companies like Exxon have spent billions to fuck up the debate on climate change by different arguments to be able to sell as much oil and for as long as possible.

Could those who helped flag this submission to death please add a comment about why they feel the article is inappropriate for discussion on HN? I thought it offered a good explanation for why a precautionary principle is appropriate for "nondiversifiable risks".

can't speak for the people who flagged it but for me personally - someone who made their living for many years denying climate change has now flipped to a new narrative of 'risk'. i just assume that he's shilling for the status quo in a new way i haven't got the energy to figure out - probably some sort of predatory delay or hawking a financial con.

I agree with most comments here on the hypocrit side of this particular person, based on their history.

Yet, I think this is a pretty good way to try to make climate change sceptics to stop being so close minded.

Not on a political level, of course, but more on daily basis discussions.

I can’t count the number of time I hear / read « The earth already had warming cycle, this one is not different » from people, perhaps less educated.

Here in France, we have a protest that started 6 months ago because government wanted to add a « Green » tax on oil. The « climate change doesn’t exists so there is no need » was heard several times...

TLDR: Value at risk is humanity as we know it. Probability of occurrence is significantly above zero. Cost of unmitigated occurrence is >> cost of unnecessary mitigation. Therefore we should act now.

It’s pretty much my view on GW from the beginning of me thinking about it.

The stakes are high, acting now and reducing our impact on the environment would be costly, but provide immediate health benefits (clean air, water ...) and reduce the long term effects of GW / reduce the probability of severe outcomes.

Never understood why this was not a standard argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com