3 ms·

They are distorting the truth, either parroting that narrative out of genuine ignorance or an attempt to start some goal-post-moving trolling. At this point, in

They are distorting the truth, either parroting that narrative out of genuine ignorance or an attempt to start some goal-post-moving trolling. At this point, informed people that would have typically countered are tired of seeing the same behavior on every other social media site. Dunning-Kruger, astroturfing, trolling - doesn't matter, just downvote the garbage. I'm not going to engage with it either. That kind of statement is just begging for a response because the goal moves in any number of directions - look, plants will sequester all our carbon! Solar minimum will counter human climate change! More food for people! It's all a conspiracy! No. There's a reason those climate change reports can be 100s of pages long. Scientists have done very thorough public research, accounting for all those variables - the conclusion is, we're fucked. All the science is complicated but completely public. Trust the summary provided by the consensus of journalists covering the scientific consensus of raw research - that's called an educated opinion. Alternatively, roll up your own sleeves and probe the research yourself. Never let some online rando's idle musings erode your opinions. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

xwdv 7y ago
We’re not fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are. The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.
- Arbalest 7y ago
  > but humans will still be here Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
  - candiodari 7y ago
    But nobody wants to have the discussion under the conditions you specify. Because this means whatever solution is put forward 1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?) 2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ? Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >We’re not fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are. The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Yeah, let's just wait and see what happens... >Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. Yeah, just a couple billions or so less, and dying / living horribly... But who cares, you give some, you get some, right?
- imtringued 7y ago
  The idea that humans are guaranteed to survive is very naive. If all asians and africans increase their co2 footprint to first world levels and we don't stop polluting for 100 years it could very well mean the death of all humans because of a lack of oxygen which is mostly produced by plankton.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  I’m concerned by climate change and fully aware that it could and likely will be disastrous. But the reflexive attacks on indications and mere implications of silver linings is annoying. It’s easy to look up that climate has destabilized, but our capacity to withstand instability has increased more. Technology and development has made the world safer for us, in spite of climate change, and it’s not clear that we won’t be able to mitigate and withstand changes in the future.
dang 7y ago
I understand how strong the opinions and feelings run on this topic, but please don't break the HN guidelines by name-calling ("online rando") or insinuating astroturfing or bad faith. We have those rules for good reason and everyone needs to stick to them here, even when we most don't feel like it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pcstl 7y ago
The reports really do not say we're fucked. Things are going to change a lot, yes. It might require a lot of changes to the way we live, yes. It might have some really tragic consequences, yes. But speaking about climate change as if the apocalypse were nigh and there were nothing that could be done about it is not only counter-productive, but has played an important part in guaranteeing the situation got as bad as it has (remember Al Gore saying that, by 2014, there would be no ice at the poles? Do you think people who heard that are more or less likely to pay attention to climate change, now that 2014 has come and gone and the ice caps are still there, even if smaller?)

xwdv 7y ago

We’re not fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are. The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.

Arbalest 7y ago
> but humans will still be here Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
- candiodari 7y ago
  But nobody wants to have the discussion under the conditions you specify. Because this means whatever solution is put forward 1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?) 2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ? Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
coldtea 7y ago
>We’re not fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are. The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Yeah, let's just wait and see what happens... >Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. Yeah, just a couple billions or so less, and dying / living horribly... But who cares, you give some, you get some, right?
imtringued 7y ago
The idea that humans are guaranteed to survive is very naive. If all asians and africans increase their co2 footprint to first world levels and we don't stop polluting for 100 years it could very well mean the death of all humans because of a lack of oxygen which is mostly produced by plankton.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
I’m concerned by climate change and fully aware that it could and likely will be disastrous. But the reflexive attacks on indications and mere implications of silver linings is annoying. It’s easy to look up that climate has destabilized, but our capacity to withstand instability has increased more. Technology and development has made the world safer for us, in spite of climate change, and it’s not clear that we won’t be able to mitigate and withstand changes in the future.

dang 7y ago

I understand how strong the opinions and feelings run on this topic, but please don't break the HN guidelines by name-calling ("online rando") or insinuating astroturfing or bad faith. We have those rules for good reason and everyone needs to stick to them here, even when we most don't feel like it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pcstl 7y ago

The reports really do not say we're fucked. Things are going to change a lot, yes. It might require a lot of changes to the way we live, yes. It might have some really tragic consequences, yes. But speaking about climate change as if the apocalypse were nigh and there were nothing that could be done about it is not only counter-productive, but has played an important part in guaranteeing the situation got as bad as it has (remember Al Gore saying that, by 2014, there would be no ice at the poles? Do you think people who heard that are more or less likely to pay attention to climate change, now that 2014 has come and gone and the ice caps are still there, even if smaller?)