16 ms·

I am really shocked at the Americans here on HN. I have to say it straight out. In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening. But

I am really shocked at the Americans here on HN. I have to say it straight out. In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening. But even here on HN, with the high quality of debate, this thread has descended into discussion of whether global warming is real or not or a maybe even good thing. It's real, it's only americans who are sceptics. Please wake up, you've been brainwashed by your corrupt media (yes, I mean Fox News amongst others).

maxerickson 10y ago
At the moment 3/19 comments are skeptical and 1 of them easily checks out as not coming from an American.
emodendroket 10y ago
It's because it doesn't fit with and can't be addressed by the libertarian ideology dear to a bunch of programmers.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Could also be a variant of manifest destiny.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Don't really see how it fits.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Manifest destiny stems in part from a religious belief in American moral superiority and the necessity and morality of its expansionism and imperialism. As a variant of that, I'm suggesting only what I've heard from (and grew up with) midwest American Christians, not least of which is language from the Vice President elect, and many other Republican elected officials: that god created the earth for man to use and consume however he wanted, and therefore there's no good reason to believe that humans can even screw up the planet, because that'd sortof be a bait and switch and god wouldn't do that to us. That man has superiority over all the plants and animals (as it says in the bible) means we can do with them as we will, there are no negatives to completely obliterating entire species, there's no meaningful consequence to that, man doesn't have the power to alter the earth in such a negative way that humanity becomes incompatible with the earth. I think it's dangerous nonsense. However, I know people believe in this. Around 10 years ago the local paper asked readers if hell was real, and sinners go there to burn for eternity, and the majority of readers said yes. And so on. So, you know, insane but also socially acceptable mythology. But these are also the same people who say they're sick of political correctness, but get all pissy when their dangerous beliefs are questioned. shrug
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        I don't think that's really manifest destiny. But sure, I've heard the stuff about dominion over the Earth. It's bad Christian theology in addition to being bad politics. That Man is to have dominion over the Earth does not imply that there's nothing he can do to make it worse for himself and his fellows. But I'm often surprised at how little many Christians I meet seem to know about the Bible or Christian theology. I guess it's mostly a cultural affiliation for many people.
        cmurf 10y ago
        I think we're in agreement that American Christians are uniquely, or perhaps especially, ignorant about a number of things, climate change and their own religion.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Well, I am an American Christian so I'm probably not going to get on board with a blanket condemnation of all of us.
- zardo 10y ago
  Isn't that true of all collective action problems?
openlyincognito 10y ago
The arrogance to say only Americans are skeptics is laughable, like the rest of the world has it all figured out...Yes, most Americans have been brainwashed to believe climate change is real. But, the planet simply has periods of warmer temperatures and periods of cooler ones. It's amazing how well they craft these lies to get people to jump on to one side and vehemently swear they know the truth, when all they're basing it off of is someone else's research presented to you through a media outlet who has an agenda.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  > the planet simply has periods of warmer temperatures and periods of cooler ones Here's the problem with people like you: In the face of assured doom for yourself if you're young enough, or most likely your children or siblings' children, you choose to either: 1. Make highly ignorant statements without doing even the slightest bit of research, in a manner that is consistent with people suffering from a clear lack of skill in critical thinking. or 2. Troll people. And it is completely impossible to tell on which side you fall. As such it is entirely impossible to approach you in any kind of sane or rational manner.
  - lolive 10y ago
    The classic "The art of being right" [1] describes 38 different options to win an argument war. Fantastically cynical book. Highly recommended! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
  - themckman 10y ago
    > assured doom This part of your statement is actually a little bit of the problem here, too. Can you define more clearly what you mean by this? I'm very interested in exploring the issue better, but having to constantly sift through piles of hyperbole from both sides, it makes it very hard to remain interested. My trivial understanding of everything goes: greenhouse gasses cause warming and we're the primary source of their increase in the past century so, therefore, we're causing the planet to warm. That's easy enough to understand. But after that, I find that I'm either an idiot because, duh, its all a hoax or that our species will be extinct tomorrow if I don't do something yesterday. It's incredibly tedious to try and gain a better understanding of everything.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
melling 10y ago
These came up in the comments of the WSJ yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz45fETw078&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz45fETw078&feature=youtu.be - John Christy Climate Change Denial Testimony Highlights May 13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg&feature=youtu.be - Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global Warming Skeptic
burkaman 10y ago
Sorry. Most of us are as shocked as you. I don't really know what to do about it.
- mikro2nd 10y ago
  All we can do is exactly the same as all you can do... do everything you can, at all levels, to get carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans, to reduce energy use where you live, and to encourage and support realistic way of getting carbon out of the air/ocean and back into the soils and rocks.
CalRobert 10y ago
Unfortunately, I have to agree. If there's any solace to be had in the US' accelerating decline and China's rise, it's that (rather shockingly) China seems to be more likely to do something about environmental issues than those who will be running the US in a few weeks are. That shouldn't really be any solace at all, though.
- hodgesrm 10y ago
  On what grounds do you conclude that China is more likely to do something about environmental issues? The record on air pollution is not good. Also, China burns an enormous amount of coal and the stats on whether consumption is going up or down are mixed. [1] The current consumption levels are unsustainable from a C02 perspective, so this is a big issue. I'm not for a moment excusing US behavior but it's clear that all large economies are going to have problems changing their consumption patterns, often for reasons that are unique to each economy in question. [1] https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8780-China-s-coal-consumption-and-CO2-emissions-What-do-we-really-know- https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8780-Ch...
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    China is not "more likely to do something". China is "doing something". China is the worlds biggest investor in Green Tech and has surpassed Europe and the US combined. http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/08/11/china-to-spend-trillions-on-green-tech/#4eed9b506356 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/08/11/china-to-sp... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s-investment-in-renewable-energy-surpasses-europe-u-s-combined.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s...
  - purplelobster 10y ago
    They have a powerful authoritarian regime run by engineers. In cases where there is a need to act quickly and decisively, that is an advantage. No need to convince the public (which in this case is already on board).
misja111 10y ago
I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. A lot of nonsense is being written and copied by everybody without any critical thinking. It's also happening when it comes to climate change. I'm not denying it, but I do think that there is a lot about its implications that we don't understand very well yet.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Stop hiding your lazy "I don't wanna change my lifestyle" character behind your "critical thinking" nonsense.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  > Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. Are you critical about how to conduct effective medical trials in your everyday life? Are you critical about the best catalogue hierarchy for books in a public library? Are you critical of the driving techniques of truckers under snow conditions? You can critique anything in life and there's a hell of a lot of things that are important for which we recognize that we have little knowledge in the domain and that our criticism is mere curiousity but has no relevance whatsoever. For some reason only a narrow band of Americans think that their knowledge or their credentials on the subject allows them to challenge the topic critically or consider that the the scientific consensus on the matter is wrong. It's a bullshit argument from bullshit skeptics. Critical thinking comes from having a minimum baseline knowledge of the subject. I have yet to meet a skeptic who does. The actual, real skeptics are the peers of climate scientists who have domain knowledge and can ask about the modeling techniques in papers, what equations were utilized, what assumptions are taken and so on. Without that it's the same level of intellectual drudgery as anti-vaxxers.
  - misja111 10y ago
    Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not denying climate change, judging by some reactions that apparently wasn't clear enough. Now to what you are saying. First of all, being critical of what the media writes about some scientific subject, is not the same as being critical of the scientist that did the research. Many times research is wrongly quoted or taken out of context. Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. Science makes progress from new facts and experiments that can't be explained by the current theory. If people would refuse to see those facts, progress would never be made.
CalRobert 10y ago
One thing to note - perhaps people from the US would care more if climate change were reported in units they could understand. Given the profound and ubiquitous scientific illiteracy that typifies the US, I'd be shocked if most realized that a 2C rise !≃ 2F
- abootstrapper 10y ago
  2C rise = 3.6F rise? I'm honestly asking.
  - maket 10y ago
    Yes that's correct.
  - thraway2016 10y ago
    Indeed. To American ears, it's really not significant, other than in the "open up vast swaths of Northern farmland to much greater diversity of crops" sense. The skepticism most commonly found in the US, based on my anecdotal evidence, is not toward whether AGW is happening, but rather why anyone ought to care. Some even consider it a good thing.
    - jbattle 10y ago
      Tell people "large parts of mexico may become uninhabitable"
      - CalRobert 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure the people who prefer to ignore climate change would not consider this their problem.
        anon1253 10y ago
        But probably consider "rampant immigration" as relevant. Unless they're up for genocide, which they quite frankly probably are, it is their problem. Genocide or not.
witty_username 10y ago
Americans are one of the heaviest polluters per capita; so that could be why. Also, they often blame countries with highest emissions (in total) (China), as if climate change cares about borders.
- mikro2nd 10y ago
  Not to mention that the US has been (albeit largely in ignorance) one of the heaviest emitters of GHGs for something like 150 years. China? A couple of decades?... Time matters...
  - nickff 10y ago
    Those are sunk 'costs'.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_t...
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      I guarantee you developing countries will not find that a convincing answer to their objections about bearing the brunt of attempts to curb emissions.
rybosome 10y ago
Unfortunately climate change has become a shibboleth for political tribal affiliation. To be conservative (in the tribal sense) means holding disbelief in climate change. Note that I'm not exempting liberals from this sort of behavior, many liberals believe in the existence of climate change without having the slighest understanding of it because that's what the rest of the tribe does. No amount of facts, exhortations, threats or pleas will make a difference now. Unless members of the conservative in-group change their minds and spread this message, its going to be a permanent fixture of the American worldview. My hope is that the people most responsible for spreading doubt (e.g. fossil fuel lobbyists) live long enough to see the consequences, but this is unlikely. The most likely scenario is that the brunt of this problem will be borne by future generations, assuming we don't get really unlucky and trigger an extinction event. :-( God damn, what a fucked world we live in. I wish I had the comfort of disbelief these people have.
- thisisdallas 10y ago
  > To be conservative (in the tribal sense) means holding disbelief in climate change To be fair it's not disbelief in climate change, it's a healthy skepticism of man made climate change.
  - vonnik 10y ago
    An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field. That skepticism is the result of self-interested propaganda from energy companies spreading FUD. Unmerited skepticism is just as dumb as unmerited belief.
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      >> An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
      - 10y ago
zgramana 10y ago
In fairness to [US] conservatives: "Half of U.S. Conservatives Say Climate Change Is Real" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/half-of-u-s-conservatives-say-climate-change-is-real https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/half-of-u...) I'll take the "glass half full" view on this, but certainly 50% leaves plenty of room for improvement.
- efnx 10y ago
  I'm sure it would be over half if they would use their brains instead of their greedy gullets.
c0nducktr 10y ago
One thing (of many) that made me absolutely furious during the American presidential debates, is that climate change and the environment in general were not brought up at all. Not a single time. The people running the world will be the death of us all, putting a chase for profit over everything else. I'm mad as hell, but feel absolutely powerless.
- bpyne 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the debates devolved into issues more about "character" than issues. Speaking more broadly about the campaigns, the candidates spent more time defending their characters than talking about issues. In particular, Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time defending against faux-issues like using a personal email server and sending classified documents through it. Adding to the ridiculousness of the situation was the amount of time reputable news outlets spent covering the faux-issues. Many US citizens are furious about the situation. Unfortunately, appealing to the lowest common denominator has become the modus operandi for campaigns here. I suppose the answer is to raise the lower common denominator through education over generations. Given the fight against education reform I don't see it happening anytime soon.
calibraxis 10y ago
> But even here on HN, with the high quality of debate Maybe the debate here on other topics, from technical to political, is also of low quality? Just with the flavor of "quality", like carefully argued (but absurd) mini-essays? Much like politicians and the media which use carefully-manicured gravitas to give the flavor of truth without the nutrients? Being irrational enough to destroy yourself isn't all that compartmentalized. It's not just about climate change, it's about economics and national ideology. Which certainly includes what we do all day in our jobs.
ransom1538 10y ago
My issue with global warming activists isn't its science but it's masking of the actual problem: over population. Global warming with a doubling of population will of course be an issue - but by the time we double population(50 years?) don't worry - things will be so bad: limited food, terrible air, almost no employment, the extra +3 degrees won't matter.
234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
I think you ought to keep an open mind and realize that skepticism is healthy, not "brainwashing" as you call it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/f... If you show evidence contrary to the "consensus", you get labeled as a practitioner of "voodoo science" by the IPCC, such as when Indian researchers reported that the IPCC study on Himalayan glaciers disappearing. Oops turns out the Indians were right after all. Examining claims made by climate scientists is no different than examining claims made by physicists or chemists. I have seen examples of the "models" being manipulated or wildly inaccurate in climate science. There's a large monetary incentive to produce climate science research, and a large amount of the process (IPCC) is controlled by politicians and their appointees. It's ripe for abuse and we need to stay vigilant, because every solution that's come out of these groups has been cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, both of which are total garbage solutions that just result in govt. taking more of our money. If we were really serious, we'd be funding the crap out of fusion power research. Fusion is the only way imo, the current renewable energy approach is too slow to advance, too inefficient, and too resource intensive. If we could get that working, we could power the planet on a bathtub of water and we wouldn't have to waste time and massive resources blanketing the planet in solar panels.
godshatter 10y ago
A large part of it, for me personally, is what I perceive to be "over-alarmism". Climate is a complicated subject and climate science is still evolving. The media tends to focus on the worst case scenarios, and tends to exaggerate too much. This triggers my bullshit meter and makes me pay closer attention. Other things like the usage of the term "denier" for skeptics, the over-emphasis on scientific consensus, and the near-religious zeal with which any amount of what I consider to be healthy skepticism is met with doesn't help. That's not to say that the arctic isn't warming (it is), or that the arctic sea ice isn't melting (it is). I would be more receptive to the data if it were brought to me with all of the considerable uncertainties exposed. I remember the days when scientists had a hard time saying anything definite in the media without a lot of caveats. I doubt these are specifically American traits. The politicization of both sides of the argument and the us vs. them mentality that pervades all dialogue any more that doesn't allow for non-extreme positions is probably the real problem.
- lamontcg 10y ago
  You're framing this argument as one of the skeptics versus the media, and ignoring the science. The gold standard of climate science is probably the IPCC AR5 report and if anything it is underestimating climate impacts like the shrinking northern summertime polar ice cap. The data is also all out there, with all the uncertainties you like, but its not going to be "brought to you", you're going to have to do a bit of work to read the original sources. IPCC AR5 is out there for you to read any time you'd actually like to get educated.
  - godshatter 10y ago
    Yes, true. And I have looked into it and actually follow certain websites that show data graphs to see how things are actually progressing on a regular basis. I've gone so far as to write programs to parse data sets and graph data. I was just trying to figure out why climate skepticism seems to be a predominantly American thing, though. American media and the great political divide seem to be good candidates. I'm not sure whether "over-alarmism" is an American media-only trait or not, though. It might also have something to do with a historical importance placed in American culture on rugged individualism and an acceptance of alternative viewpoints, but that seems to be fading as the years progress, from what I've seen.
kahrkunne 10y ago
>In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening. I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. You shouldn't be so quick to speak about the whole western world.
wdr1 10y ago
> In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening I'm not sure what weight that should carry. From my understand a vast majority of Western European countries are opposed to GMOs, another area where the science is settled. In fact, there is greater scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs than even climate change. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-...
- dagw 10y ago
  vast majority of Western European countries are opposed to GMOs That opposition, generally speaking, has nothing do with whether GMOs are safe to eat or not. It has to do partially with the potential long term effects on the ecosystem and partially with skepticism towards the business practices of the main players in the GMO field.

maxerickson 10y ago

At the moment 3/19 comments are skeptical and 1 of them easily checks out as not coming from an American.

emodendroket 10y ago

It's because it doesn't fit with and can't be addressed by the libertarian ideology dear to a bunch of programmers.

cmurf 10y ago
Could also be a variant of manifest destiny.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Don't really see how it fits.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Manifest destiny stems in part from a religious belief in American moral superiority and the necessity and morality of its expansionism and imperialism. As a variant of that, I'm suggesting only what I've heard from (and grew up with) midwest American Christians, not least of which is language from the Vice President elect, and many other Republican elected officials: that god created the earth for man to use and consume however he wanted, and therefore there's no good reason to believe that humans can even screw up the planet, because that'd sortof be a bait and switch and god wouldn't do that to us. That man has superiority over all the plants and animals (as it says in the bible) means we can do with them as we will, there are no negatives to completely obliterating entire species, there's no meaningful consequence to that, man doesn't have the power to alter the earth in such a negative way that humanity becomes incompatible with the earth. I think it's dangerous nonsense. However, I know people believe in this. Around 10 years ago the local paper asked readers if hell was real, and sinners go there to burn for eternity, and the majority of readers said yes. And so on. So, you know, insane but also socially acceptable mythology. But these are also the same people who say they're sick of political correctness, but get all pissy when their dangerous beliefs are questioned. shrug
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      I don't think that's really manifest destiny. But sure, I've heard the stuff about dominion over the Earth. It's bad Christian theology in addition to being bad politics. That Man is to have dominion over the Earth does not imply that there's nothing he can do to make it worse for himself and his fellows. But I'm often surprised at how little many Christians I meet seem to know about the Bible or Christian theology. I guess it's mostly a cultural affiliation for many people.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        I think we're in agreement that American Christians are uniquely, or perhaps especially, ignorant about a number of things, climate change and their own religion.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Well, I am an American Christian so I'm probably not going to get on board with a blanket condemnation of all of us.
zardo 10y ago
Isn't that true of all collective action problems?

openlyincognito 10y ago

The arrogance to say only Americans are skeptics is laughable, like the rest of the world has it all figured out...Yes, most Americans have been brainwashed to believe climate change is real. But, the planet simply has periods of warmer temperatures and periods of cooler ones. It's amazing how well they craft these lies to get people to jump on to one side and vehemently swear they know the truth, when all they're basing it off of is someone else's research presented to you through a media outlet who has an agenda.

Mithaldu 10y ago
> the planet simply has periods of warmer temperatures and periods of cooler ones Here's the problem with people like you: In the face of assured doom for yourself if you're young enough, or most likely your children or siblings' children, you choose to either: 1. Make highly ignorant statements without doing even the slightest bit of research, in a manner that is consistent with people suffering from a clear lack of skill in critical thinking. or 2. Troll people. And it is completely impossible to tell on which side you fall. As such it is entirely impossible to approach you in any kind of sane or rational manner.
- lolive 10y ago
  The classic "The art of being right" [1] describes 38 different options to win an argument war. Fantastically cynical book. Highly recommended! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
- themckman 10y ago
  > assured doom This part of your statement is actually a little bit of the problem here, too. Can you define more clearly what you mean by this? I'm very interested in exploring the issue better, but having to constantly sift through piles of hyperbole from both sides, it makes it very hard to remain interested. My trivial understanding of everything goes: greenhouse gasses cause warming and we're the primary source of their increase in the past century so, therefore, we're causing the planet to warm. That's easy enough to understand. But after that, I find that I'm either an idiot because, duh, its all a hoax or that our species will be extinct tomorrow if I don't do something yesterday. It's incredibly tedious to try and gain a better understanding of everything.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

melling 10y ago

These came up in the comments of the WSJ yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz45fETw078&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz45fETw078&feature=youtu.be - John Christy Climate Change Denial Testimony Highlights May 13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg&feature=youtu.be - Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global Warming Skeptic

burkaman 10y ago

Sorry. Most of us are as shocked as you. I don't really know what to do about it.

mikro2nd 10y ago
All we can do is exactly the same as all you can do... do everything you can, at all levels, to get carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans, to reduce energy use where you live, and to encourage and support realistic way of getting carbon out of the air/ocean and back into the soils and rocks.

CalRobert 10y ago

Unfortunately, I have to agree. If there's any solace to be had in the US' accelerating decline and China's rise, it's that (rather shockingly) China seems to be more likely to do something about environmental issues than those who will be running the US in a few weeks are. That shouldn't really be any solace at all, though.

hodgesrm 10y ago
On what grounds do you conclude that China is more likely to do something about environmental issues? The record on air pollution is not good. Also, China burns an enormous amount of coal and the stats on whether consumption is going up or down are mixed. [1] The current consumption levels are unsustainable from a C02 perspective, so this is a big issue. I'm not for a moment excusing US behavior but it's clear that all large economies are going to have problems changing their consumption patterns, often for reasons that are unique to each economy in question. [1] https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8780-China-s-coal-consumption-and-CO2-emissions-What-do-we-really-know- https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8780-Ch...
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  China is not "more likely to do something". China is "doing something". China is the worlds biggest investor in Green Tech and has surpassed Europe and the US combined. http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/08/11/china-to-spend-trillions-on-green-tech/#4eed9b506356 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/08/11/china-to-sp... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s-investment-in-renewable-energy-surpasses-europe-u-s-combined.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s...
- purplelobster 10y ago
  They have a powerful authoritarian regime run by engineers. In cases where there is a need to act quickly and decisively, that is an advantage. No need to convince the public (which in this case is already on board).

misja111 10y ago

I am much more shocked about the negative sentiment here at HN about any post that could be seen as criticism on the global warming theory. Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. A lot of nonsense is being written and copied by everybody without any critical thinking. It's also happening when it comes to climate change. I'm not denying it, but I do think that there is a lot about its implications that we don't understand very well yet.

tobltobs 10y ago
Stop hiding your lazy "I don't wanna change my lifestyle" character behind your "critical thinking" nonsense.
Daishiman 10y ago
> Personally I believe that it is a good thing to be critical about everything thats written in the mainstream media. Are you critical about how to conduct effective medical trials in your everyday life? Are you critical about the best catalogue hierarchy for books in a public library? Are you critical of the driving techniques of truckers under snow conditions? You can critique anything in life and there's a hell of a lot of things that are important for which we recognize that we have little knowledge in the domain and that our criticism is mere curiousity but has no relevance whatsoever. For some reason only a narrow band of Americans think that their knowledge or their credentials on the subject allows them to challenge the topic critically or consider that the the scientific consensus on the matter is wrong. It's a bullshit argument from bullshit skeptics. Critical thinking comes from having a minimum baseline knowledge of the subject. I have yet to meet a skeptic who does. The actual, real skeptics are the peers of climate scientists who have domain knowledge and can ask about the modeling techniques in papers, what equations were utilized, what assumptions are taken and so on. Without that it's the same level of intellectual drudgery as anti-vaxxers.
- misja111 10y ago
  Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not denying climate change, judging by some reactions that apparently wasn't clear enough. Now to what you are saying. First of all, being critical of what the media writes about some scientific subject, is not the same as being critical of the scientist that did the research. Many times research is wrongly quoted or taken out of context. Secondly, sometimes some research seems to contradict with other. For instance, as I mentioned already in another reply (and got already downvoted to -4 by now), while research clearly shows that the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. I find those seemingly contradicting facts interesting, they show that we apparently do not understand everything about the subjec t yet. Science makes progress from new facts and experiments that can't be explained by the current theory. If people would refuse to see those facts, progress would never be made.

CalRobert 10y ago

One thing to note - perhaps people from the US would care more if climate change were reported in units they could understand. Given the profound and ubiquitous scientific illiteracy that typifies the US, I'd be shocked if most realized that a 2C rise !≃ 2F

abootstrapper 10y ago
2C rise = 3.6F rise? I'm honestly asking.
- maket 10y ago
  Yes that's correct.
- thraway2016 10y ago
  Indeed. To American ears, it's really not significant, other than in the "open up vast swaths of Northern farmland to much greater diversity of crops" sense. The skepticism most commonly found in the US, based on my anecdotal evidence, is not toward whether AGW is happening, but rather why anyone ought to care. Some even consider it a good thing.
  - jbattle 10y ago
    Tell people "large parts of mexico may become uninhabitable"
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure the people who prefer to ignore climate change would not consider this their problem.
      - anon1253 10y ago
        But probably consider "rampant immigration" as relevant. Unless they're up for genocide, which they quite frankly probably are, it is their problem. Genocide or not.

witty_username 10y ago

Americans are one of the heaviest polluters per capita; so that could be why. Also, they often blame countries with highest emissions (in total) (China), as if climate change cares about borders.

mikro2nd 10y ago
Not to mention that the US has been (albeit largely in ignorance) one of the heaviest emitters of GHGs for something like 150 years. China? A couple of decades?... Time matters...
- nickff 10y ago
  Those are sunk 'costs'.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_t...
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I guarantee you developing countries will not find that a convincing answer to their objections about bearing the brunt of attempts to curb emissions.

rybosome 10y ago

Unfortunately climate change has become a shibboleth for political tribal affiliation. To be conservative (in the tribal sense) means holding disbelief in climate change. Note that I'm not exempting liberals from this sort of behavior, many liberals believe in the existence of climate change without having the slighest understanding of it because that's what the rest of the tribe does. No amount of facts, exhortations, threats or pleas will make a difference now. Unless members of the conservative in-group change their minds and spread this message, its going to be a permanent fixture of the American worldview. My hope is that the people most responsible for spreading doubt (e.g. fossil fuel lobbyists) live long enough to see the consequences, but this is unlikely. The most likely scenario is that the brunt of this problem will be borne by future generations, assuming we don't get really unlucky and trigger an extinction event. :-( God damn, what a fucked world we live in. I wish I had the comfort of disbelief these people have.

thisisdallas 10y ago
> To be conservative (in the tribal sense) means holding disbelief in climate change To be fair it's not disbelief in climate change, it's a healthy skepticism of man made climate change.
- vonnik 10y ago
  An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field. That skepticism is the result of self-interested propaganda from energy companies spreading FUD. Unmerited skepticism is just as dumb as unmerited belief.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    >> An extremely unhealthy skepticism that is not shared by any scientist in the field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
    - 10y ago

zgramana 10y ago

In fairness to [US] conservatives: "Half of U.S. Conservatives Say Climate Change Is Real" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/half-of-u-s-conservatives-say-climate-change-is-real https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/half-of-u...) I'll take the "glass half full" view on this, but certainly 50% leaves plenty of room for improvement.

efnx 10y ago
I'm sure it would be over half if they would use their brains instead of their greedy gullets.

c0nducktr 10y ago

One thing (of many) that made me absolutely furious during the American presidential debates, is that climate change and the environment in general were not brought up at all. Not a single time. The people running the world will be the death of us all, putting a chase for profit over everything else. I'm mad as hell, but feel absolutely powerless.

bpyne 10y ago
Unfortunately, the debates devolved into issues more about "character" than issues. Speaking more broadly about the campaigns, the candidates spent more time defending their characters than talking about issues. In particular, Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time defending against faux-issues like using a personal email server and sending classified documents through it. Adding to the ridiculousness of the situation was the amount of time reputable news outlets spent covering the faux-issues. Many US citizens are furious about the situation. Unfortunately, appealing to the lowest common denominator has become the modus operandi for campaigns here. I suppose the answer is to raise the lower common denominator through education over generations. Given the fight against education reform I don't see it happening anytime soon.

calibraxis 10y ago

> But even here on HN, with the high quality of debate Maybe the debate here on other topics, from technical to political, is also of low quality? Just with the flavor of "quality", like carefully argued (but absurd) mini-essays? Much like politicians and the media which use carefully-manicured gravitas to give the flavor of truth without the nutrients? Being irrational enough to destroy yourself isn't all that compartmentalized. It's not just about climate change, it's about economics and national ideology. Which certainly includes what we do all day in our jobs.

ransom1538 10y ago

My issue with global warming activists isn't its science but it's masking of the actual problem: over population. Global warming with a doubling of population will of course be an issue - but by the time we double population(50 years?) don't worry - things will be so bad: limited food, terrible air, almost no employment, the extra +3 degrees won't matter.

234dd57d2c8db 10y ago

I think you ought to keep an open mind and realize that skepticism is healthy, not "brainwashing" as you call it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/f... If you show evidence contrary to the "consensus", you get labeled as a practitioner of "voodoo science" by the IPCC, such as when Indian researchers reported that the IPCC study on Himalayan glaciers disappearing. Oops turns out the Indians were right after all. Examining claims made by climate scientists is no different than examining claims made by physicists or chemists. I have seen examples of the "models" being manipulated or wildly inaccurate in climate science. There's a large monetary incentive to produce climate science research, and a large amount of the process (IPCC) is controlled by politicians and their appointees. It's ripe for abuse and we need to stay vigilant, because every solution that's come out of these groups has been cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, both of which are total garbage solutions that just result in govt. taking more of our money. If we were really serious, we'd be funding the crap out of fusion power research. Fusion is the only way imo, the current renewable energy approach is too slow to advance, too inefficient, and too resource intensive. If we could get that working, we could power the planet on a bathtub of water and we wouldn't have to waste time and massive resources blanketing the planet in solar panels.

godshatter 10y ago

A large part of it, for me personally, is what I perceive to be "over-alarmism". Climate is a complicated subject and climate science is still evolving. The media tends to focus on the worst case scenarios, and tends to exaggerate too much. This triggers my bullshit meter and makes me pay closer attention. Other things like the usage of the term "denier" for skeptics, the over-emphasis on scientific consensus, and the near-religious zeal with which any amount of what I consider to be healthy skepticism is met with doesn't help. That's not to say that the arctic isn't warming (it is), or that the arctic sea ice isn't melting (it is). I would be more receptive to the data if it were brought to me with all of the considerable uncertainties exposed. I remember the days when scientists had a hard time saying anything definite in the media without a lot of caveats. I doubt these are specifically American traits. The politicization of both sides of the argument and the us vs. them mentality that pervades all dialogue any more that doesn't allow for non-extreme positions is probably the real problem.

lamontcg 10y ago
You're framing this argument as one of the skeptics versus the media, and ignoring the science. The gold standard of climate science is probably the IPCC AR5 report and if anything it is underestimating climate impacts like the shrinking northern summertime polar ice cap. The data is also all out there, with all the uncertainties you like, but its not going to be "brought to you", you're going to have to do a bit of work to read the original sources. IPCC AR5 is out there for you to read any time you'd actually like to get educated.
- godshatter 10y ago
  Yes, true. And I have looked into it and actually follow certain websites that show data graphs to see how things are actually progressing on a regular basis. I've gone so far as to write programs to parse data sets and graph data. I was just trying to figure out why climate skepticism seems to be a predominantly American thing, though. American media and the great political divide seem to be good candidates. I'm not sure whether "over-alarmism" is an American media-only trait or not, though. It might also have something to do with a historical importance placed in American culture on rugged individualism and an acceptance of alternative viewpoints, but that seems to be fading as the years progress, from what I've seen.

kahrkunne 10y ago

>In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening. I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. You shouldn't be so quick to speak about the whole western world.

wdr1 10y ago

> In the rest of the western world, there is no debate about what's happening I'm not sure what weight that should carry. From my understand a vast majority of Western European countries are opposed to GMOs, another area where the science is settled. In fact, there is greater scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs than even climate change. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-...

dagw 10y ago
vast majority of Western European countries are opposed to GMOs That opposition, generally speaking, has nothing do with whether GMOs are safe to eat or not. It has to do partially with the potential long term effects on the ecosystem and partially with skepticism towards the business practices of the main players in the GMO field.