Hacker News Reader

Your comment is an even better example of why the climate change issue is so polarized, because the article made no mention of climate change, yet you were triggered by it anyhow.

>Last summer was the hottest on record, and in Menindee, where temperatures regularly top 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit), another scorching season is expected.

Climate change is very implicit in the context of the article, even if not explicitly stated.

The first two points (hottest summer on record, average temperatures) are facts about recent weather patterns. The third is simply a prediction (I don't know what the source was for that).

Was the article incorrect in any specific way? If that is the case, I would love to know where it was wrong, specifically.

There are literally no weather conditions that won't be cited as evidence of dangerous climate change sooner or later. Wetter, dryer, hotter, colder, etc. It isn't so much being triggered as just saving time and hurrying the conversation on to its likely destination.

If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high quality camera but all the photos are basically classic Australian bush scenes.

> If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article.

Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.

There are a lot of interesting things to discuss in the Murray-Darling basin, the water market and associated system of dams and waterways is one of Australia's subtle-but-serious national achievements.

However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.

There's an equally useful conversation around unsustainable use of resources - for instance overuse of water which would seem to be particularly precious in a region known for frequent droughts. Climate warming may worsen those, or they may happen more frequently, yet there's a whole world of potential human stupidity and short-sightedness to consider before that rates a single mention.

The top comment right now is hijacking this story to talk about climate change.

The article doesn't even mention the word 'climate', let alone 'climate change'. There are references to last summer being the hottest on record, which is true, or the effects of the drought, but it's not talking about climate change. Get your shit together - you are a perfect example of why the issue is polarized.

If the river always runs dry and the article is not implying anything about climate change, then why does the article exist?

It doesn't really need to be about climate change - the main issue people are upset about seems to be this:

> At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents

> blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water

> in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.

To complain about and argue for changes in upstream water use.

The issue is not related to climate change, but a series of water policies that have favoured farming / agriculture over the environment / community use. In short, too much water being taken upstream.

As an Australian, it baffles me that we're trying to grow cotton and rice in the desert. I personally don't believe that farmers who make poor business decisions should be consistently bailed out by the government. I'd rather we pay for research into drought resistant crops, growing the right produce in the right climates, and failing that, retraining farmers and agri workers into new industries like solar. Lots of sun, not much water.

So you vote against action on climate change because you're worried people believe the wrong thing? Even if what they believe is wrong, isn't climate change mitigation still a win? Cleaner air, less reliance on non-renewable energy, etc, seem like fine goals regardless of whether or not it turns out the straights are as dire as we think (though, your issues with this particular article aside, there's plenty of evidence to merit concern)?

Even if what you say is true, one sensationalized article does not mean that the entire climate change issue is hyperbole. The fact is that climate change is a real problem with potentially catastrophic outcome for the human specie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_...

When the stakes are so high, where we are literally risking the future of the human race, I'd definitely lean towards the side of action and change even if they sensationalize some facts sometimes in order to motivate change in others.

It's not even a sensationalized article.

It doesn't blame anything on climate change. It just says this:

> ... residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.

That's it - the only mention of human fault in the entire thing.

I don't think GP is saying that climate change itself is hyperbole.

The problem is that reporting on both sides is garbage laden with misunderstandings and outright lies. This fuels the anti-climate movement, especially when it's coming from the 'pro' side like in this case.

I've been ringing bells about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s after being involved in a relevant research project, I'm the polar opposite of a denier, but the way that even 'pro climate change' media covers the topic is harmful to actually conveying it to the public because the media wants to put hyperbole on everything.

When the media over-stimulates the public by exaggerating every little thing to a BIG DEAL, the public becomes non-responsive to actual BIG DEAL issues.

This actively hinders action to manage catastrophic climate change. This is the same as the CIA handbook tactic to redirect activist movements to ineffective causes so that they're too activism-fatigued to act on an effective cause when one is presented.

As pointed out by others the article talks about water use not climate change:

"At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream."

The article heavily insinuates climate change and will certainly be categorised as a climate change piece in the minds of most readers.

Especially in Australia where 'drought' === 'climate change' === 'farmer issues'.

Do climate change scientists pay hundreds of millions of dollars to climate change PR firms to spread known untruths about climate change?

Is there a network of climate change science think tanks dedicated to framing the climate change debate in a way that benefits the climate change community?

Do climate scientists run social media "consultancies" to make a pro-climate change case on the major social platforms and smaller forums?

If any of the above happen - questionable, but let's pretend - they're at tiny outlier scale compared to the organised lies, smears, denial and general FUD put out by the denialist corporates.

You say you've been warning about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s. What in your opinion would be the best way to counter climate denial PR?

Because clearly simply informing the public of the facts isn't going to do anything against the noise being made by the denialist side.

> What in your opinion would be the best way to counter climate denial PR?

With education. And with a factual description of the problem and the available solutions. With outright rejection of denialism. With rejection of feelgood non-activism like plastic straw bans and tree-planting measures. Don't get me wrong, those things are good and a step in the right direction, but they're far too little far too late compared to what must be done, and so they're inactivism that wastes public energy on measures that don't move the needle in addressing the problem.

This doesn't even fly with 'enlightened' crowds like HN out of the box because they'll tend to kneejerk about things like nuclear power + electrochemical CO2 sequestration despite it being the only realistic option to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in. Worth noting that the mainstream crowds in China/Russia are a lot more pragmatic about this than AU/UK/US.

I'm pretty sure this comment is going to be downvoted just for mentioning it, but I'll drop it anyway to genuinely answer your question. A lot of the folk I know in the field have basically given up hope to avert this and become gloom and doom in the last 5 years, including people you would've seen on TV at the Paris Accords. They are probably right. It's pretty depressing info to handle. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but people much smarter than me don't seem to have one either.

tl;dr: Like Bill Gates puts it, misdirected climate activists are actually a bigger problem than climate deniers at this point.

They aren't suggesting climate change is hyperbole, they're suggesting that the reason many people are able to dismiss climate change is because articles like this reek of sensationalism. In otherwords, in an attempt to get people to listen, they are turning people away as readers can pick up on the hyperbole and feel they're being manipulated.

If instead we spoke about the issue factually, to the point and without trying to influence people's opinions with emotional devices, more stubborn people might listen to the idea.

It's a shame, because if ever there were a real enough reason for an evangelical to scream in the streets at strangers that the world is ending, this might be it. But it doesn't work, people don't listen to the screaming crazies.

Except the article never mentions climate change so that argument doesn’t make any sense. The issue here is largely due to overuse of water for irrigation combined with a spell of hot dry weather.

> When the stakes are so high, where we are literally risking the future of the human race, I'd definitely lean towards the side of action and change even if they sensationalize some facts sometimes in order to motivate change in others.

I find this behavior deeply hypocritical and irresponsible. Worse, it is unproductive, because even a minimal sensationalization may trigger a lot of misguided (but sincere) opposition from climate deniers. Heck, even many rational people may be alienated by this!

As a matter of principle, I am disgusted by propaganda that contains falsehoods or exaggerations, even when it is for a good cause.

> As a matter of principle, I am disgusted by propaganda that contains falsehoods or exaggerations, even when it is for a good cause.

Any issue important to more than a few dozen people will involve propaganda, falsehoods, and exaggerations from both sides of the issue. Simple fact of statistics and human nature.

Letting that affect your evaluation of the facts is a mistake.

> Letting that affect your evaluation of the facts is a mistake.

I never said I will change my opinion about the issue because of that. Only that I am disgusted by this behavior.

As a more practical effect, just a tiny speck of falsehood in the discourse of "my" side, turns any attempt to convince anybody on the "other" side as an endless discussion about that silly speck, agreeing that it is false, but nonetheless the main cause remains true. It is very tiring. Exaggerated propaganda is useful to create stronger echo-chambers, but not to convince people who are outside.

1) It would be better if this article recognised that Australia is a naturally dry country and that the Murray Darling basis is prone to seasonal dry conditions.

2) It would be even better if Australian farmers also recognised that and didn't grow water intensive crops there.

3) The "climate change issue" is not polarised.

> I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe.

On what basis do you think your vote will change other peoples beliefs?

Vote differently please.

Isn’t the overwhelming scientific consensus on the harm we’re doing enough to justify collective action? It seems to be the only thing of sufficient scale to address the harm you’re concerned about. I am struggling bc to understand your priorities here.

Why are you against collective action? Because it could ... make a difference or something?

Source for your claim that this river is always in this state? Because the article disagrees with you. You don't think the country's largest drought has any impact on its largest river?

You seem looking for a reason to bash climate change and journalism in general.