40 ms·

I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "What

I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- guelo 16y ago
  How are links to respected science journals "hysterical, scare mongering, idiocy"?
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    There is nothing wrong with the science, I just find this specific presentation of them extreme and off putting. Particularly the use of words like "catastrophe" and "gravest threat" etc. The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary. I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that this is a well concluded blog post. Instead I think it is very political and probably unhelpful. There clearly is an issue with the media focusing on Climategate, I don't think this is a successful way to raise that. And I maintain the tone of the piece is breathy and hysterical. Not good.
    - getonit 16y ago
      Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.
        getonit 16y ago
        Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe? (The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
        ErrantX 16y ago
        Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem. Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes. In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :) What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
    - gjm11 16y ago
      If there is indeed nothing wrong with the science, then there is a "clear and present danger" of a "catastrophe". In which case, what's wrong with saying so? (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a sensible thing to do if the theatre actually is on fire. Though in that particular case there might be safer ways to begin.)
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a meaningful discussion without yelling words like that :) There is this theory, I fear, that it tries to imply the gravity of the situation... all of which is pointless. Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated aims. To extend your theatre analogy. Shouting "fire" in a theatre during the first half when it looks relatively likely a fire will start in the second half is definitely counter-productive. :) My point is; this is entirely the wrong, unethical, political and hysterical way to present important science and raise the issues. Do it right, or not at all IMO.
        gjm11 16y ago
        I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is. What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)
davidw 16y ago
> what the HN community thinks about this article. If you really want to know, I think that this article and all the other ones about the TSA, politics, and similar topics that are not strictly about startups or hacking should not be here. You have a zillion places on the internet to discuss that stuff - reddit comes to mind - do you really have to pollute this one too?
c1sc0 16y ago
Some would welcome an existential threat to humanity as an opportunity to innovate our way out of this mess. Right now, we lack a common goal & survival tends to be a strong motivator. We can't go back to the woods, but maybe we can build a habitat that includes some woods & maybe some species that are required for human survival. Think about it as building a Minimum Viable Planet. Now that is a startup.
nodata 16y ago
I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing. Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."
arethuza 16y ago
If I was being absolutely honest - the first thing I do when I see any maps about climate change is check what the predicated changes are for my location. The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

guelo 16y ago
How are links to respected science journals "hysterical, scare mongering, idiocy"?
- ErrantX 16y ago
  There is nothing wrong with the science, I just find this specific presentation of them extreme and off putting. Particularly the use of words like "catastrophe" and "gravest threat" etc. The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary. I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that this is a well concluded blog post. Instead I think it is very political and probably unhelpful. There clearly is an issue with the media focusing on Climategate, I don't think this is a successful way to raise that. And I maintain the tone of the piece is breathy and hysterical. Not good.
  - getonit 16y ago
    Please define 'catastrophe' and/or point to the real 'gravest threat'.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.
      - getonit 16y ago
        Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe. Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe? (The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
        ErrantX 16y ago
        Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem. Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem. When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes. In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :) What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
  - gjm11 16y ago
    If there is indeed nothing wrong with the science, then there is a "clear and present danger" of a "catastrophe". In which case, what's wrong with saying so? (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a sensible thing to do if the theatre actually is on fire. Though in that particular case there might be safer ways to begin.)
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a meaningful discussion without yelling words like that :) There is this theory, I fear, that it tries to imply the gravity of the situation... all of which is pointless. Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated aims. To extend your theatre analogy. Shouting "fire" in a theatre during the first half when it looks relatively likely a fire will start in the second half is definitely counter-productive. :) My point is; this is entirely the wrong, unethical, political and hysterical way to present important science and raise the issues. Do it right, or not at all IMO.
      - gjm11 16y ago
        I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is. What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)

davidw 16y ago

> what the HN community thinks about this article. If you really want to know, I think that this article and all the other ones about the TSA, politics, and similar topics that are not strictly about startups or hacking should not be here. You have a zillion places on the internet to discuss that stuff - reddit comes to mind - do you really have to pollute this one too?

c1sc0 16y ago

Some would welcome an existential threat to humanity as an opportunity to innovate our way out of this mess. Right now, we lack a common goal & survival tends to be a strong motivator. We can't go back to the woods, but maybe we can build a habitat that includes some woods & maybe some species that are required for human survival. Think about it as building a Minimum Viable Planet. Now that is a startup.

nodata 16y ago

I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing. Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."

arethuza 16y ago

If I was being absolutely honest - the first thing I do when I see any maps about climate change is check what the predicated changes are for my location. The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.