Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaedPsyker | Hacker News Reader

For me what was eye-opening was the amount of digging in and denial of it.

I thought with it literally right there in your face that the denialists would come to some sense. No instead we got, "you can tell you weren't around in 1976, it was worse then", which it wasn't and a basic check would clearly show that's a lie. "Oh the climate is always changing", not at this rate. The usual 'snowflake' ad hominem attack thrown in too. I don't even understand what even is the point of this head in sand strategy.

View on HN

> I don't even understand what even is the point of this head in sand strategy.

It varies.

A lot of the time when you see it happen, the other side isn't exactly being polite either. Its a battle of "snowflake" vs "moron". In those cases, theres much more at stake admitting your wrong, with much more permenance. You're essentially admitting that not only were your theories on climate change wrong, but that the oppositions view on you is correct, you are a moron. Neither side means this, of course, but thats how it ends up being.

In more polite arguments, denial could down to fear of change, fear of being wrong (essentially the same as the less polite argument, but with the loser thinking that of themselves), or perhaps even just simply not being convinced for whatever reason

There are people denying climate change in this thread. I don't think psychological analysis of their comments or views accomplishes anything.

I'd hardly call "if you're rude to people, they won't want to accept your arguments" a psychological analysis. I'm not even sure why it accomplishes nothing.

We will not survive if we wait to convince the unconvincable. We must take actions that will anger some. When it comes to climate change, the use of force is vitally necessary and wholly justified.

Absolutely. At this point, I'd consider use of force on this matter to be self defence.

Oh no baby got a boo boo. Call the waaaaaaambulance.

You don't understand what you're asking for.

It is a subliminal response to protect oneself from guilt and fear of change / death.

I was there in '76. In the UK. I was in school. I remember the water rationing, the half-days at school to conserve water, the longest and hottest summer in my memory. The past 20 years in Southern California have not dulled how blisteringly hot that summer of '76 was. And yet this year, I'm seeing numbers that would make my memories of '76 seem like a mild summer day.

I think it's because climate change is used as a formal issue disguising the actual desire of acquiring power. It's being used to legitimize power acquisition and force and is often full of things that won't actually make a difference.

This is a circular argument - anyone proposing policy must aquire power to enact that policy.

Right, but the formal issue of solving climate change is wrapped in passion and other meaningless notions (boarding on religious) from the point of view of real actions that we can take that are practical and achievable under the actual conditions of society and the world.

Those are never put in front because that’s not the point. The entire point is to use an issue to acquire power and there’s no reason to believe that power will be used the way you think it will. Especially since it is never described precisely how the problem will be solved. Just “green energy”.

The real issue isn’t how we solve climate change. It’s who gets to control energy policy - tax credits and subsidies and those nice things. And who can mix in their pet issues whine they’re at it. Suddenly solving climate change becomes climate justice because it’s maybe a better formal issue to obtain power with. It’s still bullshit.

Look at the latest bill and it’s climate change parts. It essentially gives rich car owners a bigger refund on buying rich people cars. Go figure - the powerful have managed to serve their own interests and the plebs who put them there cheer them on.

Good point, let's do nothing different and drill more.

> what even is the point

I have yet to hear anybody actually describe what they propose to do to cool down the planet and (supposedly) make it sustainable. I have heard a lot of people insist that we need to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to social justice causes in the name of combatting climate change, though.

You haven't heard people say we should burn less fossil fuel, and use more solar, wind and nuclear energy? That people should have better insulated homes? That we should fly less and eat less meat? That we should plant more trees? That large corporations exploiting externalities should be better regulated?

If that's the case, you might want to read "sustainable energy without the hot air" [1] which is available free online. It's slightly dated with regards to the cost of solar panels, but a good introduction to the area IMHO.

[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/

Be warned that is way out of date now.

> I have yet to hear anybody actually describe what they propose to do to cool down the planet and (supposedly) make it sustainable.

Plenty of people did just that. You can start with the IPCC reports. A lot of think tanks also published reports focused on specific countries. Not knowing is not an excuse, particularly when so much noise has been made on the subject and so much information is available.

> I have heard a lot of people insist that we need to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to social justice causes in the name of combatting climate change, though.

We (the rest of the world) by and large do not care about your culture wars. The fact that saving the goddamn climate we rely on is somehow controversial is maddening. You collectively sound like children arguing about who started and who’s the meanest.

I believe that you believe that we're in imminent danger of extinction. I'm still a bit skeptical, in part because of the number of people in actual power who say they believe same thing, but then propose to "fix it" by raising taxes and then not doing anything climate related with all that new tax revenue.

You can believe governments are inept while still believing that climate change poses a direct threat. It's not an either/or situation.

We're in imminent danger not of extinction, but of our planet becoming a much less nice place to live, also with the upheaval (social unrest, migration, wars) that is likely to come with that.

> I believe that you believe that we're in imminent danger of extinction.

I do not believe that. I believe that other species are at risk of extinction, or indeed extinct already, but I think we have enough of a technological and intellectual advantage to avoid extinction. Probably not casualties in the hundred of millions, though.

> I'm still a bit skeptical, in part because of the number of people in actual power who say they believe same thing, but then propose to "fix it" by raising taxes and then not doing anything climate related with all that new tax revenue.

“I am doubtful because politicians do not take it seriously” is not really sound. What your experience shows (rightly, in my opinion) is that a lot of politicians are opportunists with flexible principles, not that the situation is not serious.

> I'm still a bit skeptical, in part because of the number of people in actual power who say they believe same thing

And if Roosevelt sat around waiting for all the unconvinceable to be convinced, and didn't enact lendlease, maybe UK and USSR would have fallen and US would face the Axis alone.

Many Americans felt the same way about Hitler and Japan while the Holocaust was happening. It wasn't untill Perl harbour that the penny dropped.

> We (the rest of the world) by and large do not care about your culture wars. The fact that saving the goddamn climate we rely on is somehow controversial is maddening. You collectively sound like children arguing about who started and who’s the meanest.

Trust me, it gets annoying to a lot of us over here too.

There's good reason for that, of course.

Poor people are more affected by and less able to adapt to climate change.

Poor people increasing their wealth, are doing so by starting to burn fossil fuels. If you don't give an alternative, they're going to scale up their fossil fuel burning as fast as they can

Reply on news.ycombinator.com