Hacker News Reader

You seem to expect that rising Carbon Dioxide means people will suffocate, and if they haven't, then "Gotcha! It's all made up", but it doesn't work like that.

You will never, ever see the water level rise in a way that is directly visible. The effect is more frequent flooding.

I personally, have noticed a change in the climate. When I was a child, the river used to freeze in the winter and there would be metres of snow. These day the city government still hires snow clearers every winter, but they never have anything to do. Meanwhile, the summers are hotter and drier than ever. A couple of years a ago I went sunbathing in October!

Probably the best way of demonstrating this is to see the former arctic permafrost with you own eyes. I know people who have done this and they came away amazed. However, if you will not accept any 3rd party data as evidence this becomes quite difficult as you would have had to go there a few years ago to see the 'before' state.

No I don't think it means people will suffocate. I'm saying that carbon dioxide should help trees grow. That we have a natural buffer against too much.

Did you know that some farms, pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to improve their crop. It seems self-evident that any extra would be mopped up by trees, bushes etc in the wild.

I hear what you are saying about snow and your experience. But you should also ask the older generation what their experience was of the winters there. There may have been times that there wasn't always snow. And unfortunately, I don't think our weather today is entirely natural - that weather modification has been around for a few years now.

> It seems self-evident that any extra would be mopped up by trees, bushes etc in the wild.

This is factually incorrect. Please stop spreading lies. [0] You are absolutely failing to realise the rate at which we are pumping CO2, NO2 and SO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

> Did you know that some farms, pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to improve their crop.

Did you know that humans are going to get cognitively impaired with the increasing CO2 concentrations? [1]

[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/plant...

[1] https://www.colorado.edu/mechanical/2020/04/21/continued-co2...

So much trust in the stories you are provided.

Even though it doesn't tally up with what you see.

I see a wonderful world. You see a world that you yourself are killing.

But even accepting the stories, science etc we are given, the top 100 corporations are responsible on their own for 70% of the emissions. Why don't we make this issue completely disappear in the easiest way possible, by banning those corporations only from any polluting? Job done.

> But even accepting the stories, science etc we are given, the top 100 corporations are responsible on their own for 70% of the emissions. Why don't we make this issue completely disappear in the easiest way possible, by banning those corporations only from any polluting? Job done.

Well on that we definitely have common ground, all you need now is a few spare million to form a political lobbying group. Bare in mind that much of that pollution is to make products/utilities that are then used by consumer. So it is still consumer driven pollution. But I absolutely agree on the principle that Government and Industry should be leading the Carbon emmisions reduction.

Its so obvious, isn't it? Why hasn't anyone done it? Because that does not suit the agenda.

Because government does not change anything, its just there to pacify the masses. Name one thing that government has done for you, when you voted?

Lobbying is not the answer. You are dealing with a system that has been captured from top to bottom.

It's not a religious position.

It's a chain of trust, as an individual you can decide where that trust begins and ends for you, but it's impossible for you to be at the forefront measuring every possible variable, and being an expert in every field, conducting analysis of the data.

At some point you need to defer to people who know (or at least, you believe they know) more than you.

It's like with our computers spying on us. Yes you can inspect the code, yes you can check the signatures of the code running on your machine match the code as listed, but then what of the OS, what of the drivers, what of the micro-code, firmware, hardware, etc etc.

It's an impossible position to reason you out of, because you are living in a completely zero trust world.

Fair enough. But I don't trust. Can I know?

If I cannot know, I will not trust. To trust would weaken me, and empower those who hide information to hide even more. This is where we are.

I do live in a zero trust world. I trust government and corporations least of all. Individuals I have much more time for.

Although zero trust was disconcerting at first, I also find it liberating. I know that there is lots I do not know. I'm not pretending to myself - holding beliefs as if they were knowledge, because of misplaced trust.

Do you grow your own food ? Where does your zero trust end ?

Science is very difficult to cheat on such high visibility issues. There is a huge scientific consensus on climate change, from experts of all countries and diverse backgrounds. For it all to be a huge conspiracy seems like a pretty big leap of faith, that they are genuine is a simpler explanation.

Science is incredibly easy to cheat. Everyone is silo'd and beholden to funding.

That very few people speak up about it (why would they, when their jobs are at risk) means nothing.

A really good example of someone speaking up, from a 'trusted' organisation, is this editorial in the British Medical Journal.

aaand here's the link, sorry!

editorial in the BMJ about covid: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

Tuvalu sinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn0pbO6U7Xs

Kiribati sinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0j6kr4ZJ0