Hacker News Reader

Comment by peppermint_gum | Hacker News Reader

I noticed climate change denialism is being replaced by "it's happening but it's not a big deal" or "others are polluting more so we shouldn't do anything".

View on HN

It's important to distinguish between that and skepticism of existential threat claims used to argue that we must radically rearrange society now to combat it. Not everyone agrees on the best approach to handling climate change. That doesn't make them denialists.

If you think society can adapt and a reasonable reduction of CO2 over time is the best approach using market forces, then for example, degrowth sounds like a bad solution. If you think we're doomed in the next decade, then might as well start geoengineering.

>If you think society can adapt and a reasonable reduction of CO2 over time is the best approach using market forces, then for example

Then for example you might be a flat earther too. We've been trying that for past two decades and it's an epic failure.

Other than the success of electric cars, solar and wind energy. Making use of carbon taxes and funding carbon sequestration efforts can also be incorporated. Removing barriers to building nuclear plants and pumping more funding into fusion research would also help. What will the next couple of decades look like?

None of those were caused by market forces.

Denying the climate is changing due to human impact is objectively wrong, like being a flat earther. People have generally accepted this now.

Arguments about what to do about it, or if it is a 'big deal', are subjective ones- so there is no right or wrong in most cases.

Haldane's four stages of acceptance:

1. This is worthless nonsense.

2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.

3. This is true, but quite unimportant.

4. I always said so.

Stages 1 and 2 are approximately denial, stage 3 is the skepticism you mentioned

That may just be the difference in labeling it "climate change" instead of "global warming." Global warming describes an abnormal process, whereas climate change is something that empirically happens whether humans contribute to it or not. The climate changes (duh).

My issue with climate science, apart from it being more ideological than science when I studied it in college, is that we only ever talk about the last 100 or so years when we know so much more about Earth climate history from geological studies and their impact on prehistoric humans (paleoanthropology). Yet that history is left out. For example, we know that CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past due to increased volcanic activity.

It's been replaced by nuance instead of fear-mongering and lies. There's a difference.

You can both hold the idea that climate change is happening but it's also not going to completely doom the human race to being wiped off the planet. Extreme fear-mongering by climate sensationalists is every bit as bad as "denialism". In fact it's worse, because you make people believe they're helpless while simultaneously creating a group that reacts violently due to the fact they've been conditioned through fear.

>it's also not going to completely doom the human race

Ok, how?

Isn't the person claiming something is going to happen the first one that needs to explain why and how? Only after that, it makes sense to ask the person denying the original claim to bring his arguments.

Or, to put it simply: in this case, it's the doomers that need to answer how and why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

What do you mean how? You will not die from climate change that's how. There is no data that accurately predicts an end to the human race due to climate change. It's an issue that deserves attention, but the likelihood that'll it wipe you out or anyone in the near future is pure bullshit.

Things are improving, humans will adapt etc.

You were far more likely to die from a number of natural things before modern inventions (yes the ones that are now causing climate change) helped keep you well fed, warm, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com