4 ms·

So you are implying that this is natural and humans are not contributing. Sounds like climate change denial to me.

melling 6y ago
You get climate denial everywhere, even on HN. Read the comments in the Wall Street Journal and it’s 100 times as bad. This should have been a warning to people a decade ago that we weren’t going to do enough to solve the problem. One group goes to one extreme trying to shame people into not flying, for example. While the other extreme undoes policy that tries to reduce emissions. When do we start drilling in Alaska?
- rtx 6y ago
  Because people talking about climate change keep sending out contradictory messages. If climate change was as grave they talk about we wouldn't have seen them opposing nuclear and GMO.
  - freen 6y ago
    This is a gross failure to both understand science and human beings. Demanding perfection in others before even beginning to contemplate a potential global disaster is either the height of either stupidity or mendacity.
    - rtx 6y ago
      Agreed, we have a group who don't understand basic science as nuclear. I would be suspicious of their understanding of something complex as environment. Yup don't teach me about climate change from private jets and heated homes.
      - Oletros 6y ago
        Ah, climate scientists are against nuclear or GMO? Do you have any link to those papers against nuclear?
      - melling 6y ago
        People need to stop heating their homes otherwise you don’t think they believe in climate change? There are over 100,000 global flights a day. Emissions for the air industry amount to 2% yearly. We really need to start with the big emitters. Optimizing the airline industry while coal is 40% of emissions is sort of a “penny wise pound foolish” attitude.
        rtx 6y ago
        >while coal is 40% of emissions So lets start with replacing those with nuclear and not nuclear plats being replaced with coal. >People need to stop heating their homes otherwise you don’t think they believe in climate change? Yup start wearing a sweater. I believe in pollution and keep my usage to a minimum.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - freen 6y ago
        You have, quite expectedly, completely failed to grasp my point. Our perspectives on this topic could not be more diametrically opposed. Perhaps your epistemology needs a checkup? How many other things have you read that fundamentally disagree with you, yet you have incorrectly inferred they did not?
        dang 6y ago
        Please don't make the thread even worse by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Personal attacks, in particular, are not welcome here. Nor is flamewar perpetuation. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
      - dang 6y ago
        Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we ban such accounts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mempko 6y ago
    They had to shut down some nuclear reactors in 2019 in Norway because the ocean water was too warm. Nuclear requires a highly organized society to function. Nuclear is a huge risk since it's getting more probable our societies will collapse in the future. Who will maintain these nuclear power plants when people struggle to feed themselves? We need to start winding down our consumption, not replace it with nuclear power.
theduder99 6y ago
look at global temperature avgs and you'll see massive change over the entire period none of which can be sufficiently explained. Here you go: http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/new-scientist-global-temperature-chart.jpg http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/...
dang 6y ago
Please don't feed the trolls. Or, as the HN guidelines euphemistically put it: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You get climate denial everywhere, even on HN. Read the comments in the Wall Street Journal and it’s 100 times as bad. This should have been a warning to people a decade ago that we weren’t going to do enough to solve the problem. One group goes to one extreme trying to shame people into not flying, for example. While the other extreme undoes policy that tries to reduce emissions. When do we start drilling in Alaska?

rtx 6y ago
Because people talking about climate change keep sending out contradictory messages. If climate change was as grave they talk about we wouldn't have seen them opposing nuclear and GMO.
- freen 6y ago
  This is a gross failure to both understand science and human beings. Demanding perfection in others before even beginning to contemplate a potential global disaster is either the height of either stupidity or mendacity.
  - rtx 6y ago
    Agreed, we have a group who don't understand basic science as nuclear. I would be suspicious of their understanding of something complex as environment. Yup don't teach me about climate change from private jets and heated homes.
    - Oletros 6y ago
      Ah, climate scientists are against nuclear or GMO? Do you have any link to those papers against nuclear?
    - melling 6y ago
      People need to stop heating their homes otherwise you don’t think they believe in climate change? There are over 100,000 global flights a day. Emissions for the air industry amount to 2% yearly. We really need to start with the big emitters. Optimizing the airline industry while coal is 40% of emissions is sort of a “penny wise pound foolish” attitude.
      - rtx 6y ago
        >while coal is 40% of emissions So lets start with replacing those with nuclear and not nuclear plats being replaced with coal. >People need to stop heating their homes otherwise you don’t think they believe in climate change? Yup start wearing a sweater. I believe in pollution and keep my usage to a minimum.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - freen 6y ago
      You have, quite expectedly, completely failed to grasp my point. Our perspectives on this topic could not be more diametrically opposed. Perhaps your epistemology needs a checkup? How many other things have you read that fundamentally disagree with you, yet you have incorrectly inferred they did not?
      - dang 6y ago
        Please don't make the thread even worse by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Personal attacks, in particular, are not welcome here. Nor is flamewar perpetuation. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we ban such accounts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mempko 6y ago
  They had to shut down some nuclear reactors in 2019 in Norway because the ocean water was too warm. Nuclear requires a highly organized society to function. Nuclear is a huge risk since it's getting more probable our societies will collapse in the future. Who will maintain these nuclear power plants when people struggle to feed themselves? We need to start winding down our consumption, not replace it with nuclear power.

theduder99 6y ago

look at global temperature avgs and you'll see massive change over the entire period none of which can be sufficiently explained. Here you go: http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/new-scientist-global-temperature-chart.jpg http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/...

dang 6y ago

Please don't feed the trolls. Or, as the HN guidelines euphemistically put it: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html