Hacker News Reader

Comment by beefield | Hacker News Reader

I'm quite tired of the framing of the climate change discussion, whether it exists or not. It is like you pondering whether your house is going to actually burn next year or not when you think about purchasing insurance. Completely idiotic question. What you are thinking is the risk (i.e probability times loss) of your house burning. So no, I am not going to tell you that the climate catastrophe is going to happen. What I do say is that even if after reframing the discussion from dichotomy to probability discussion, if you really think that the probability of the scientists being collectively wrong is so small that the science can be ignored, in my books you are so f$&king stupid[1] that you should give up your voting rights.

[1] pardon, I think my french is a bit rusty here.

View on HN

I don't think that's a very apt analogy because it still frames the question as to whether something is _going_ to happen.

It's more like you contemplating whether your house is going to burn next year while a fire fighter is telling you it's on fire right now.

Yes well, those so-called "firefighters", what do they know about fire anyway. I see no evidence that my house is burning, and all the fire coming out of it is due to its natural warming cycle.

It is important to distinguish the basis of the change. Whether anthropogenic or of other causes (or, likely, a mix of causes). The same change in weather could have different responses based on the cause. It is also important to talk about what to change. Some governmental/industrial changes could cause the deaths of millions or billions of people (doing absolutely nothing might do the same), it is important to have a civil conversation where the ideas and rights of all are respected, understood, and considered. Oversimplifying is not useful. I'm not arguing for any specific reason or changes, only for civility and all around thoughtfulness. It is a very complex issue that may impact a huge number of factors in society. Great caution, civility, and thought should be given. Even to those who disagree with some conclusions. Advocating for the removal of voting rights for those who disagree so that we can arrange their future for them may be counterproductive.

It is important to distinguish the basis of the change

Why does that do anything but confuse matters? The cause of the change doesn't affect anything else you have said about how to address it.

> Advocating for the removal of voting rights for those who disagree so that we can arrange their future for them may be counterproductive.

I disagree slightly. Not "may be" but "is" counterproductive. Occasionally you just need to vent out actual opinions and ignore the productivity...

As someone who's not up to date on all the climate research. Are most the scientists in agreement that climate change is a result of our actions? And do they all agree on how dangerous changes to our climate are?

The IPCC summary is available to read: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-...

> very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2

> Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

> The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defi ned as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.

That's from AR4, not the most recent AR5 report. In AR5, the IPCC is back to a range of 1.5C to 4.5C for climate sensitivity (very unlikely to be below 1C or above 6C), which is pretty much what the uncertainty in estimating climate sensitivity has been for the last 50 years. A rather remarkable lack of progress...

Well if we are talking about risks and probabilities. There are events with non-trivial probability that can negate the effects of this such as major volcanic eruptions or nuclear war etc.

I don't think many people ignore the science. Quite a few of us do ignore the over-the-top doom saying and fear mongering, and the patronizing tone.

It's fine to ignore those parts as long as you still vote and advocate for increased funding to renewable & no-carbon energy deployment and reduced tax incentives for legacy fuel generation (i.e. the depletion allowance, which is solely afforded to fossil fuel extractors).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com