The hottest eight years on record were the last eight years | Hacker News Reader

The hottest eight years on record were the last eight years

theverge.com

43 pointsgeox11 comments

People keep on making doomsday arguments about climate change. A few degrees is not going to cause the extinction of the human race (though it will cause a few million of unneeded deaths). But, there is an excellent economic argument. The cost of repairing damage due to natural disasters, weatherizing buildings and equipment for new climates, and even moving cities is astronomical. Sustainability initiatives are a bargain in comparison.

Can you please inform yourself?

The science is pretty solid and we are not talking about a few million deaths (a few if you aren't included, of course).

https://youtu.be/1BDmIis9STE

You just posted a video where the host and guest think that there will be literally no humans left on this planet. That is just wildly improbable. This is like the science-y version of the Rapture. It appeals to people into doom porn. Climate change is a huge problem, but the Earth itself will be fine. People will live but their quality of life will decrease. It is stupid to let it happen though, so best not to find out who is right.

That's not true, they are talking about different scenarios. They are not saying we are going extinct for sure.

Of course if you consider a scenario of +6° we are talking about billions of deaths.

The problem here is the food crisis which will come and its consequences.

And, by the way, the scientist is an ipcc reviewer which is the principal authority about climate change and part of ONU.

Science isn’t ONLY about facts.

It’s a lot of suppositions and analysis wrapped around some self-evident truth.

Just like the speed of light still remains not a fact. (ICYMI, we STILL have no way to measure the speed of light in one direction)

It's probably more than a few million deaths. It's more likely to be on the order of tens or hundreds of millions. It may have already, if you take into account the social disorder in places that were already marginal and can't afford anything that makes their lives harder.

"Tens of millions of deaths" ought to be sufficient to get people thinking in doomsday terms. It's a poor excuse for people to say, "Well, it's not going to wipe out every single man, woman, and child, so it must be ok". People end up in speaking exaggerated terms because people are exaggerating the level required for them to take it seriously.

The economic argument should also suffice, but of people are demanding extinction as a requirement for action, then no level of economic harm is going to cross that barrier. You'd think that the simple self-interest would make a difference, but it seems to me that people are putting something their ideology even over self-interest.

You are probably right, a few million is too much of an understatement. Maybe for just heat related deaths, but counting fires, floods, famines, and political instability tens or hundreds of millions seem right.

I have seen cost estimates that it would take 5-10% of the world's GDP each year to reach sustainability. Seems a like a bargain to me.

Although I agree that we should not consider an extinction level event inevitable, your comment discounts the real possibility of runaway with what amounts to a hand wave.

It is also the largest number of temperature reading stations and satellite.

Could we only wonder if there’s a straight line correlation between that and this OP’s trending data.

Are you saying that climate change is man made through industrialization? I mean your argument is basically that we can launch more satellites and stations as industrialization progresses.

Or could it be that that the average law lost out to the din of the increasing noise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com