Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistrial9 | Hacker News Reader

ok - but the 400 page report does not get promoted, this broadcast TV piece does..

Yeah but this kind of clickbait actively destroys trust in climate science, because the lunatics think that they get sold a hoax. And actually, the kind of writing is extremely sketchy.

And it doesn't help that the lunatics are floating in a sea of hoaxes.

No, it doesn't. What destroys trust in climate science is coordinated attacks from conservative think thanks. You people who think its the fault of them not acting like perfect logicians are delusional. Its is propaganda (clickbait or otherwise) which actually makes things happen, not reasoned arguments. Conservatives understand this is and that is why they tend to win even when their goal are clearly bad.

Ah yes, climate deniers just haven't been talked to right!

Rather then them choosing to consume a media diet 100% filled with "liberal hoaxes THEY don't want YOU to know about!!!!!"

There’s no such thing as climate deniers.

There are people asking “Hey, maybe there are additional mechanisms in the climate that cause a hot summer that we don’t know about”? and then there are people running around with their head cut off, screaming about how air conditioning and cars and modern technology is the devil incarnate while offering no practical solutions.

in 2010 or so in our daily USA city newspaper online-edition, at least three times a week for the entire year, did I respond to "no there is no climate warming" posts -- straight denial.

No, there really are climate deniers. Paid for it otherwise.

The media often does a sensationalist job of presenting climate change. It's always in existential terms, then social media runs with that, and you have public figures talking about how we're all doomed if we don't do something drastic in the next 5-10 years. Instead of it being a range from less severe to more severe with risk factors and tradeoffs increasing, along with possible mitigation strategies from more mundane to more risky.

It becomes a binary of we're doomed or we do something drastic right now (massive degrowth, abandon capatalism, quit fossil fuel cold turkey, etc) with little in between.

You remember that time "The media" tried to communicate nuance, and it worked? The reason you don't is because you can't. People are not equipped to receive that.

The real issue here is industry is destroying our planet, and you nitpick the media because you can't handle the real problem. Bike shedding.

That's an extremely reductive take. Industry provides the economic activity for billions of people and our modern lifestyle. Clean energy will still be provided by industry, as will carbon capture and other mitigating solutions.

What do you propose, going back to a preindustrial lifestyle? Do you have something better than we do that or we all die message that I'm criticizing? Bike shedding my ass.

> Industry provides the economic activity for billions of people

Bullshit jobs 40-75%, transport & cars to those bullshit jobs, too much stuff produced we don't need, ...

> as will carbon capture

Not soon, no. Lookup how much is already in the air and how much is the technology able to capture. We'd need tens of thousands of such factories. We have the technology - we have trees.

> going back to a preindustrial lifestyle

Living sustainably != preindustrial lifestyle.

> something better than we do that or we all die

Doing what we've done before (= more of the bad stuff that got us where we are) will get us to the "we all die" part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com