Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaylinux | Hacker News Reader

I'm talking about experts on how we should live and structure society as a whole. Climate science is one tiny part of that calculus.

And no climate scientist has told me I should lock myself in my house and eat cockroaches while they gallivant in their private jets from mansion to mansion and gorge themselves on quail tongues and sturgeon eggs.

EDIT: I didn't mean to say climate change is not happening or having negative impacts demonstrated by science, clearly the science says it is. I mean it's a non-issue in terms of people changing their lifestyles. With such renown and respected experts as Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter, it's clear that the experts are firmly on my side, and anybody saying otherwise is a dangerous extremist denier.

View on HN

> With such renown and respected experts as Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter, it's clear that the experts are firmly on my side, and anybody saying otherwise is a dangerous extremist denier.

I think a big flaw in your thinking is that for these people climate change won't have big consequences equals in climate change won't have big consequences for you. They can pay there way around the negative effects by e.g. buying another house somewhere more habitable, paying security personal to protect from looters or pay high prices for goods. You probably can't. The people you named are aware of the consequences for the ordinary people and that's why they are raising there voice but they are not directly affected that's why they are only raising there voices and take less action.

You on the other hand should do both, raise your voice and demand action as well as take action yourself by limiting your negative impact where its easiest (which apparently you started to do already) and don't wait for the upper class to change.

If society degenerates to the point I need to buy another house somewhere more habitable or pay personal security to protect myself from looters, or cease being able to afford necessities within my lifetime, it will almost certainly be due to the effect of climate regulations and policies, rather than climate change itself. So if you think I should look at it from a purely selfish perspective, then I should actually demand inaction.

> Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter

Terrible choice of guiding stars. The scientists that have been studying this and raising the alarm bells since the 70s are the guiding star. If you're feeling threatened by what the scientists are saying, and believe in them, I couldn't see how your protest is an honest attempt to help the situation. I agree most celebrity activists are hypocrites, and I sympathize with feeling overwhelmed and helpless, but informed consumers consumers can and have affected production - and ultimately man-made GHGs (transport, energy, goods, livestock, agriculture) are released primarily due to supply chain, and changing how much and how we consume changes everything upstream.

> Terrible choice of guiding stars.

So you confess your extremist heretical beliefs in denying the integrity, honesty, and expertise in the ruling of society of these people? Sounds like a dangerous, seditious thing to think.

> The scientists that have been studying this and raising the alarm bells since the 70s

Of course, I would never doubt The Science of climate change. What I am talking about is what we should do about it as a collective societal response. And that takes a different kind of expert, and those experts have decided that the correct response is to amass vast wealth, buy beachfront mansions and yachts and fly around on private jets and perhaps also to destroy Libya on occasion.

> dangerous, seditious thing to think

I think maybe you're spending too much time online.

> and those experts

Not sure why you keep calling political entities 'experts'. They are definitely experts of their political domains, but this claim of their prime importance on climate change matters seems to be your own.

To go back to what I'm guessing is your concern: No one's coming to steal your right to drive a Tesla, but more people might just opt to not own their own vehicle, as public transport options improve. If 50 years from now, people are able to use shared transport to get door-to-door from city A to city B, and at a similar (or better) speed, for less money, the demand for vehicles may drop. As autonomous vehicles are getting better, it's only a matter of time.

> I think maybe you're spending too much time online.

I'm dutifully reciting what the experts tell me offline.

> Not sure why you keep calling political entities 'experts'. They are definitely experts of their political domains, but this claim of their prime importance on climate change matters seems to be your own.

I'm not, I'm calling the ruling class experts at ruling and running society.

> To go back to what I'm guessing is your concern:

That's not my concern.

> No one's coming to steal your right to drive a Tesla, but more people might just opt to not own their own vehicle, as public transport options improve. If 50 years from now, people are able to use shared transport to get door-to-door from city A to city B, and at a similar (or better) speed, for less money, the demand for vehicles may drop. As autonomous vehicles are getting better, it's only a matter of time.

For the commoners, of course. Naturally the experts would still permit themselves to fly around in their private jets and yachts, etc. It's for the greater good, according to the experts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com