7 ms·

This article is a perfect example of why the climate change issue is so polarized - it's just so full of propaganda and lies that the important truth it talks a

This article is a perfect example of why the climate change issue is so polarized - it's just so full of propaganda and lies that the important truth it talks about is glossed over with mistrust. "Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-coloured pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry." This river runs dry regularly and has even before the industrial revolution. Guess what happens when rivers run dry? You get stagnant mustard colored pools. The sentence is trying to pull on emotional heart strings with nonsense. You know what else you find naturally in dried up rivers? Dead fish and animals. You know what you find in every body of water around the world today? Pesticides from farm runoff. Does it matter? Sometimes. In short, just untrustworthy nonsense. I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe.

Mvandenbergh 7y ago
1) It would be better if this article recognised that Australia is a naturally dry country and that the Murray Darling basis is prone to seasonal dry conditions. 2) It would be even better if Australian farmers also recognised that and didn't grow water intensive crops there. 3) The "climate change issue" is not polarised.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Fricken 7y ago
Your comment is an even better example of why the climate change issue is so polarized, because the article made no mention of climate change, yet you were triggered by it anyhow.
- quickcode 7y ago
  >Last summer was the hottest on record, and in Menindee, where temperatures regularly top 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit), another scorching season is expected. Climate change is very implicit in the context of the article, even if not explicitly stated.
  - montalbano 7y ago
    The first two points (hottest summer on record, average temperatures) are facts about recent weather patterns. The third is simply a prediction (I don't know what the source was for that). Was the article incorrect in any specific way? If that is the case, I would love to know where it was wrong, specifically.
- roenxi 7y ago
  There are literally no weather conditions that won't be cited as evidence of dangerous climate change sooner or later. Wetter, dryer, hotter, colder, etc. It isn't so much being triggered as just saving time and hurrying the conversation on to its likely destination. If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high quality camera but all the photos are basically classic Australian bush scenes.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      There are a lot of interesting things to discuss in the Murray-Darling basin, the water market and associated system of dams and waterways is one of Australia's subtle-but-serious national achievements. However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    There's an equally useful conversation around unsustainable use of resources - for instance overuse of water which would seem to be particularly precious in a region known for frequent droughts. Climate warming may worsen those, or they may happen more frequently, yet there's a whole world of potential human stupidity and short-sightedness to consider before that rates a single mention.
- swebs 7y ago
  The top comment right now is hijacking this story to talk about climate change.
libraryatnight 7y ago
So you vote against action on climate change because you're worried people believe the wrong thing? Even if what they believe is wrong, isn't climate change mitigation still a win? Cleaner air, less reliance on non-renewable energy, etc, seem like fine goals regardless of whether or not it turns out the straights are as dire as we think (though, your issues with this particular article aside, there's plenty of evidence to merit concern)?
computerex 7y ago
Even if what you say is true, one sensationalized article does not mean that the entire climate change issue is hyperbole. The fact is that climate change is a real problem with potentially catastrophic outcome for the human specie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... When the stakes are so high, where we are literally risking the future of the human race, I'd definitely lean towards the side of action and change even if they sensationalize some facts sometimes in order to motivate change in others.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  It's not even a sensationalized article. It doesn't blame anything on climate change. It just says this: > ... residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream. That's it - the only mention of human fault in the entire thing.
- missosoup 7y ago
  I don't think GP is saying that climate change itself is hyperbole. The problem is that reporting on both sides is garbage laden with misunderstandings and outright lies. This fuels the anti-climate movement, especially when it's coming from the 'pro' side like in this case. I've been ringing bells about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s after being involved in a relevant research project, I'm the polar opposite of a denier, but the way that even 'pro climate change' media covers the topic is harmful to actually conveying it to the public because the media wants to put hyperbole on everything. When the media over-stimulates the public by exaggerating every little thing to a BIG DEAL, the public becomes non-responsive to actual BIG DEAL issues. This actively hinders action to manage catastrophic climate change. This is the same as the CIA handbook tactic to redirect activist movements to ineffective causes so that they're too activism-fatigued to act on an effective cause when one is presented.
  - kieranmaine 7y ago
    As pointed out by others the article talks about water use not climate change: "At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream."
richmarr 7y ago
> I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe. On what basis do you think your vote will change other peoples beliefs? Vote differently please.
eranima 7y ago
Source for your claim that this river is always in this state? Because the article disagrees with you. You don't think the country's largest drought has any impact on its largest river? You seem looking for a reason to bash climate change and journalism in general.
ssully 7y ago
The article doesn't even mention the word 'climate', let alone 'climate change'. There are references to last summer being the hottest on record, which is true, or the effects of the drought, but it's not talking about climate change. Get your shit together - you are a perfect example of why the issue is polarized.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  If the river always runs dry and the article is not implying anything about climate change, then why does the article exist?
  - smcl 7y ago
    It doesn't really need to be about climate change - the main issue people are upset about seems to be this: > At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents > blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water > in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    To complain about and argue for changes in upstream water use.
  - rhys91 7y ago
    The issue is not related to climate change, but a series of water policies that have favoured farming / agriculture over the environment / community use. In short, too much water being taken upstream. As an Australian, it baffles me that we're trying to grow cotton and rice in the desert. I personally don't believe that farmers who make poor business decisions should be consistently bailed out by the government. I'd rather we pay for research into drought resistant crops, growing the right produce in the right climates, and failing that, retraining farmers and agri workers into new industries like solar. Lots of sun, not much water.
bambataa 7y ago
Isn’t the overwhelming scientific consensus on the harm we’re doing enough to justify collective action? It seems to be the only thing of sufficient scale to address the harm you’re concerned about. I am struggling bc to understand your priorities here.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Why are you against collective action? Because it could ... make a difference or something?

Mvandenbergh 7y ago

1) It would be better if this article recognised that Australia is a naturally dry country and that the Murray Darling basis is prone to seasonal dry conditions. 2) It would be even better if Australian farmers also recognised that and didn't grow water intensive crops there. 3) The "climate change issue" is not polarised.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Fricken 7y ago

Your comment is an even better example of why the climate change issue is so polarized, because the article made no mention of climate change, yet you were triggered by it anyhow.

quickcode 7y ago
>Last summer was the hottest on record, and in Menindee, where temperatures regularly top 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit), another scorching season is expected. Climate change is very implicit in the context of the article, even if not explicitly stated.
- montalbano 7y ago
  The first two points (hottest summer on record, average temperatures) are facts about recent weather patterns. The third is simply a prediction (I don't know what the source was for that). Was the article incorrect in any specific way? If that is the case, I would love to know where it was wrong, specifically.
roenxi 7y ago
There are literally no weather conditions that won't be cited as evidence of dangerous climate change sooner or later. Wetter, dryer, hotter, colder, etc. It isn't so much being triggered as just saving time and hurrying the conversation on to its likely destination. If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high quality camera but all the photos are basically classic Australian bush scenes.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    There are a lot of interesting things to discuss in the Murray-Darling basin, the water market and associated system of dams and waterways is one of Australia's subtle-but-serious national achievements. However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There's an equally useful conversation around unsustainable use of resources - for instance overuse of water which would seem to be particularly precious in a region known for frequent droughts. Climate warming may worsen those, or they may happen more frequently, yet there's a whole world of potential human stupidity and short-sightedness to consider before that rates a single mention.
swebs 7y ago
The top comment right now is hijacking this story to talk about climate change.

libraryatnight 7y ago

So you vote against action on climate change because you're worried people believe the wrong thing? Even if what they believe is wrong, isn't climate change mitigation still a win? Cleaner air, less reliance on non-renewable energy, etc, seem like fine goals regardless of whether or not it turns out the straights are as dire as we think (though, your issues with this particular article aside, there's plenty of evidence to merit concern)?

computerex 7y ago

Even if what you say is true, one sensationalized article does not mean that the entire climate change issue is hyperbole. The fact is that climate change is a real problem with potentially catastrophic outcome for the human specie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... When the stakes are so high, where we are literally risking the future of the human race, I'd definitely lean towards the side of action and change even if they sensationalize some facts sometimes in order to motivate change in others.

ceejayoz 7y ago
It's not even a sensationalized article. It doesn't blame anything on climate change. It just says this: > ... residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream. That's it - the only mention of human fault in the entire thing.
missosoup 7y ago
I don't think GP is saying that climate change itself is hyperbole. The problem is that reporting on both sides is garbage laden with misunderstandings and outright lies. This fuels the anti-climate movement, especially when it's coming from the 'pro' side like in this case. I've been ringing bells about catastrophic climate change since the early 00s after being involved in a relevant research project, I'm the polar opposite of a denier, but the way that even 'pro climate change' media covers the topic is harmful to actually conveying it to the public because the media wants to put hyperbole on everything. When the media over-stimulates the public by exaggerating every little thing to a BIG DEAL, the public becomes non-responsive to actual BIG DEAL issues. This actively hinders action to manage catastrophic climate change. This is the same as the CIA handbook tactic to redirect activist movements to ineffective causes so that they're too activism-fatigued to act on an effective cause when one is presented.
- kieranmaine 7y ago
  As pointed out by others the article talks about water use not climate change: "At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream."

richmarr 7y ago

> I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe. On what basis do you think your vote will change other peoples beliefs? Vote differently please.

eranima 7y ago

Source for your claim that this river is always in this state? Because the article disagrees with you. You don't think the country's largest drought has any impact on its largest river? You seem looking for a reason to bash climate change and journalism in general.

ssully 7y ago

The article doesn't even mention the word 'climate', let alone 'climate change'. There are references to last summer being the hottest on record, which is true, or the effects of the drought, but it's not talking about climate change. Get your shit together - you are a perfect example of why the issue is polarized.

BubRoss 7y ago
If the river always runs dry and the article is not implying anything about climate change, then why does the article exist?
- smcl 7y ago
  It doesn't really need to be about climate change - the main issue people are upset about seems to be this: > At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents > blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water > in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  To complain about and argue for changes in upstream water use.
- rhys91 7y ago
  The issue is not related to climate change, but a series of water policies that have favoured farming / agriculture over the environment / community use. In short, too much water being taken upstream. As an Australian, it baffles me that we're trying to grow cotton and rice in the desert. I personally don't believe that farmers who make poor business decisions should be consistently bailed out by the government. I'd rather we pay for research into drought resistant crops, growing the right produce in the right climates, and failing that, retraining farmers and agri workers into new industries like solar. Lots of sun, not much water.

bambataa 7y ago

Isn’t the overwhelming scientific consensus on the harm we’re doing enough to justify collective action? It seems to be the only thing of sufficient scale to address the harm you’re concerned about. I am struggling bc to understand your priorities here.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

Why are you against collective action? Because it could ... make a difference or something?