Comment by esarbe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by esarbe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> already believer

Hrm. So, if one follows the scientific consensus[0] and actually takes into consideration the political and social consequences of the scientific consensus one is a ... believer?

I think at that point, you really have to ask yourself where the burden of proof really is. And if not the ones not-"believing" in the fact of global warming are the ones following some kind of believe system.

> The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance.

Dude, that bullshit and you know it. We know what's happening. We've known it for a very long time. The scientists employed by companies like Exxon, BP, Total et all recognized in the seventies that there's a huge problem and that we are wreaking havoc with our dependence on fossil fuels. So don't 'We don't know what's happening" me.

We know what's happening, we can model it and we can use these models to create predictions. And the picture is not nice, you know. Funny thing; the predictions by previously mentioned scientists from world-famous oil producers actually created very accurate models that hold up today.

It's only political meddling that 'softened' these models to to make climate change and global warming not appear as drastic as it is.

> doing changing anything in their daily lives.

That's a fallacy. I can doing changing everything in my life and it will not change a iota. This is not some kind of personal responsibility-issue. This needs a concentrated global effort. Not some backyard hippies doing composting.

[0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...

To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.

We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).

> So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.

I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure.

Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)!

The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no.

So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way.

> We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).

The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.

Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not.

The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.

If it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways.

If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?

Because there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.

So, it's war, then?

I don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.

There are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0].

Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...

What do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?

Of course they will be. That's just what happened during the Syrian civil war; the refugees were welcomed with open arms in Europe, Germany didn't experience any political turmoil that reverberates to this day at all.

I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands.

I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.

Unfortunately, killing hundreds of millions of starving people can be done very easily -- much more easily than solving the underlying problem. The areas that become uninhabitable will then not be able to produce more starving people, so such an atrocity need only be carried out once.

The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com