4 ms·

I’m definitely on team climate change but this just feels alarmist to me.

recursive 6y ago
I don't think teams and feelings are useful tools for addressing physical problems.
tpmx 6y ago
Yeah, what happened to being solution-oriented? It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?
- adrianN 6y ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to say. The paper just observes that outdoor and indoor CO2 concentrations are related, and that high CO2 impacts cognition. Therefore increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on indoor cognition. What is the problem with that? Why is it "flaming crap"?
  - tpmx 6y ago
    > Why is it "flaming crap"? You 100% misread my post. I did not claim the article was "flaming crap". Please re-read it, this time reading every word.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I did in fact read every word in your post, but still don't understand it. Can you maybe rephrase it? I am pretty sure that this discussion here is not about climate change, but about the effects of higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, on CO2 concentrations indoors.
      - tpmx 6y ago
        > I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I did in fact read every word in your post, but still don't understand it. Still you had zero doubts about incorrectly posting something about how I was calling this post "flaming crap" (I didn't). Perhaps learn more English before you speak with such confidence.
        recursive 6y ago
        I'm a fluent English speaker, and I'm also having a hard time figuring out your point. And it seems ambiguous what exactly you're calling "flaming crap".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        tpmx 6y ago
        Please do explain how you find it ambiguous what exactly I'm calling "flaming crap". I'm actually quite curious. In fact, I suspect you are lying. But you're not interested once this topic has moved away from the the front page. Reminder: What I posted was: > It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?
        recursive 6y ago
        tpmx: I can't respond to your post since it's dead. There's probably not a way I can convince I'm not lying, but I'm not. "Not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap". I honestly still don't know which flaming crap you're referring to. All I know is that it's technical. For all I can tell, it could quite conceivably be OP. Your entire point is lost on me. I don't see any reason not to solve the technical problem at hand. On the contrary, I think that's a great idea.
- recursive 6y ago
  Is there anyone opposed to trying to solve the problem? I don't understand this dichotomy you're trying to illustrate.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    It's a comment in general on the discourse regarding climate change here.
juniper_strong 6y ago
I agree. We're at 412 ppm outside and there is a long way to go before indoor levels are an environmental issue rather than an HVAC one.
- martinpw 6y ago
  > there is a long way to go before indoor levels are an environmental issue Well of course. It's right there in the title of the article "...by the end of the century." That doesn't make it uninteresting to consider given current trajectories.

I don't think teams and feelings are useful tools for addressing physical problems.

tpmx 6y ago

Yeah, what happened to being solution-oriented? It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?

adrianN 6y ago
I don't understand what you're trying to say. The paper just observes that outdoor and indoor CO2 concentrations are related, and that high CO2 impacts cognition. Therefore increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on indoor cognition. What is the problem with that? Why is it "flaming crap"?
- tpmx 6y ago
  > Why is it "flaming crap"? You 100% misread my post. I did not claim the article was "flaming crap". Please re-read it, this time reading every word.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I did in fact read every word in your post, but still don't understand it. Can you maybe rephrase it? I am pretty sure that this discussion here is not about climate change, but about the effects of higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, on CO2 concentrations indoors.
    - tpmx 6y ago
      > I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I did in fact read every word in your post, but still don't understand it. Still you had zero doubts about incorrectly posting something about how I was calling this post "flaming crap" (I didn't). Perhaps learn more English before you speak with such confidence.
      - recursive 6y ago
        I'm a fluent English speaker, and I'm also having a hard time figuring out your point. And it seems ambiguous what exactly you're calling "flaming crap".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        tpmx 6y ago
        Please do explain how you find it ambiguous what exactly I'm calling "flaming crap". I'm actually quite curious. In fact, I suspect you are lying. But you're not interested once this topic has moved away from the the front page. Reminder: What I posted was: > It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?
        recursive 6y ago
        tpmx: I can't respond to your post since it's dead. There's probably not a way I can convince I'm not lying, but I'm not. "Not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap". I honestly still don't know which flaming crap you're referring to. All I know is that it's technical. For all I can tell, it could quite conceivably be OP. Your entire point is lost on me. I don't see any reason not to solve the technical problem at hand. On the contrary, I think that's a great idea.
recursive 6y ago
Is there anyone opposed to trying to solve the problem? I don't understand this dichotomy you're trying to illustrate.
- tpmx 6y ago
  It's a comment in general on the discourse regarding climate change here.

juniper_strong 6y ago

I agree. We're at 412 ppm outside and there is a long way to go before indoor levels are an environmental issue rather than an HVAC one.

martinpw 6y ago
> there is a long way to go before indoor levels are an environmental issue Well of course. It's right there in the title of the article "...by the end of the century." That doesn't make it uninteresting to consider given current trajectories.