48 ms·

You are correct the essence of science is repeatable predictions. Sadly I don't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other fear monger

by kls 7y ago

You are correct the essence of science is repeatable predictions. Sadly I don't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other fear mongering that happened in decades past, so they just down-vote and move on, not thinking about what science actually entails. All of those real environmental issues where dealt with, in measured response and we survived. If we had listened to the extremists agendas we would have all started living in mud huts instead of taking lead out of gas and banning CFC's. There are real environmental disasters happening like the reef's dyeing near agricultural runoff and deforestation due to industrialization. These real issues get drowned out by this incessant fear mongering that cannot make an accurate prediction, because they try to conscript every disaster as being related to AGW, then the predictions go south when they try to support their claims. Fixing CO2 is not going to save the reefs, getting rid of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from agricultural farming will. We know this for a fact, we have repeatable test that prove it conclusively. Fixing CO2 will not stop deforestation, the increase in CO2 has actually lead to a greener earth, controls on logging, returning to sane preventative burning policies and limiting growth into forest areas will.

goatinaboat 7y ago
I don't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other fear mongering that happened in decades past I suspect you’re correct. I remember when I was a child the children in my village were not allowed to play outside for a while because our parents had seen or read scare stories about acid rain and thought we would be burned by it! But I don’t believe there was a single case in Wales of a child being dissolved... and it rains here every day!
- kls 7y ago
  This piece is far short of a scientific paper, it has all the tells from proclaiming a vegan diet as healthy to advocating for population controls. This is not science it is an agenda paper. I mean what in the world does full gender equality have to do with the climate. I have no idea but it's in the papers conclusion as a must do to contain climate change. And why is a scientific climate piece advocating for social and economic justice.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept. Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes, leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      It's only been hijacked because the centrists and right-wing people have let it be hijacked. Up until a few years ago, the standard way to get bills passed was for Democrats and Republicans to jointly write bills. Failing that, they'd each write their own bill and then hammer together a compromise. If the only politicians with a climate change proposal are those on the far left, they're the ones that are going to get heard and set the agenda. I'd love to see a nice Republican environmental proposal, something based on market economics, like a carbon tax & tariff (https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding) But until such exists, you can't complain about the far left setting the agenda.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      has already been hijacked by leftist radicals Greta is on stage calling for not net zero emissions but actual zero. It’s a religion at this point complete with prophets (whose prophecies are always wrong) and demagogues.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. > Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Because, as the name suggests, it is intended as a New Deal that is also Green. Sure, it's a left-of-center proposal. But where, if environmentalism isn't inherently left, is the equally strongly advocated proposal from the right? The left isn't hijacking environmentalism, they are just the only group showing up for it. > Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. Basic conventional economics does recognize that, but that center-right isn't interested in much policy action based on that, and farther right factions reject conventional empirical economics for openly ideological schools that hold that markets can't fail they can only be failed. > Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept It's inherently inconsistent with the capitalist doctrine that is universal in the center-right to right. It's not fundamentally incompatible with some of the not-exactly-capitalist economic views of the far right, I guess, but it has other conflicts with most of them. > But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes Left environmentalists would try harder to build a compromise coalition with other environmentalists around solutions that weren't specifically tied to other left-wing agenda items if, you know, any other environmentalists were showing up. > leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism. Nah, it's using socialism to overcome the working classes natural resistance to policies whose broad outcomes they would prefer, but who know that without some guardrails the capitalist class is going to assure that the working class pays all the (gross) costs and more. That is, it's using socialism to peddle environmentalism, not the other way around.

by kls 7y ago

goatinaboat 7y ago

I don't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other fear mongering that happened in decades past I suspect you’re correct. I remember when I was a child the children in my village were not allowed to play outside for a while because our parents had seen or read scare stories about acid rain and thought we would be burned by it! But I don’t believe there was a single case in Wales of a child being dissolved... and it rains here every day!

kls 7y ago
This piece is far short of a scientific paper, it has all the tells from proclaiming a vegan diet as healthy to advocating for population controls. This is not science it is an agenda paper. I mean what in the world does full gender equality have to do with the climate. I have no idea but it's in the papers conclusion as a must do to contain climate change. And why is a scientific climate piece advocating for social and economic justice.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept. Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes, leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    It's only been hijacked because the centrists and right-wing people have let it be hijacked. Up until a few years ago, the standard way to get bills passed was for Democrats and Republicans to jointly write bills. Failing that, they'd each write their own bill and then hammer together a compromise. If the only politicians with a climate change proposal are those on the far left, they're the ones that are going to get heard and set the agenda. I'd love to see a nice Republican environmental proposal, something based on market economics, like a carbon tax & tariff (https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding) But until such exists, you can't complain about the far left setting the agenda.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    has already been hijacked by leftist radicals Greta is on stage calling for not net zero emissions but actual zero. It’s a religion at this point complete with prophets (whose prophecies are always wrong) and demagogues.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been hijacked by leftist radicals. Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center- rather than radical-) left. > Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions? Because, as the name suggests, it is intended as a New Deal that is also Green. Sure, it's a left-of-center proposal. But where, if environmentalism isn't inherently left, is the equally strongly advocated proposal from the right? The left isn't hijacking environmentalism, they are just the only group showing up for it. > Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure. Basic conventional economics does recognize that, but that center-right isn't interested in much policy action based on that, and farther right factions reject conventional empirical economics for openly ideological schools that hold that markets can't fail they can only be failed. > Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept It's inherently inconsistent with the capitalist doctrine that is universal in the center-right to right. It's not fundamentally incompatible with some of the not-exactly-capitalist economic views of the far right, I guess, but it has other conflicts with most of them. > But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes Left environmentalists would try harder to build a compromise coalition with other environmentalists around solutions that weren't specifically tied to other left-wing agenda items if, you know, any other environmentalists were showing up. > leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism. Nah, it's using socialism to overcome the working classes natural resistance to policies whose broad outcomes they would prefer, but who know that without some guardrails the capitalist class is going to assure that the working class pays all the (gross) costs and more. That is, it's using socialism to peddle environmentalism, not the other way around.