10 ms·

Those Twitter comments…goddamn. Why does climate change attract all these loonies? Even if you ignore the data completely, these people surely can’t look at an

• beachy 3y ago
  I was at a barbecue when climate change came up. A lot had been drunk and people spoke freely. One Dad cried, and said he couldn't believe it, because of the future effects on his kids. It was a powerful and enlightening moment.
• wmeredith 3y ago
  > Why does climate change attract all these loonies? They've been exposed to a decades-long propaganda campaign that is ongoing.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • johnny99k 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • throwway120385 3y ago
      I don't think it should be surprising that there are groups of people everywhere who want to skew data one way or another. But the thing I keep coming back to WRT climate change is that the climate in my area is currently killing trees that were totally fine for 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 years until the last 2 or 3 years. I find that pretty convincing evidence that something is wrong, and working backwards from that through the idea that carbon dioxide blocks thermal radiation and that the temperature is increasing, it's pretty convincing to me that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide as much as we have has had a pretty substantial effect on the stable temperature of the planet. I would expect the temeperature to go up as a result of our actions. So in my opinion the only argument is about the degrees, and currently I'm seeing very convincing evidence that the IPCC is wrong, but that it was too conservative in its prediction, and that's very alarming to me as a person who has to live here for the next 40 or 50 years.
      • hotpotamus 3y ago
        I wonder whereabouts you are? I'm in South Texas which is currently going through a heat wave and drought the likes of which I've not seen (and it wasn't like it was cool and wet here before). Trees seem to be giving up, and I think I've noticed more animals dead on the road than ever before; I'd assume from heat exhaustion or thirst. Also a co-worker's well ran dry and apparently it's difficult to drill another because the local concrete supplier's well also ran dry. Meanwhile, my city (San Antonio) reports that they're dealing with a lot of water main breaks because of ground shifting. It all feels like the start of a dystopian near-future sci fi. I suppose to balance it out somewhat and not catastrophize too much, it seems like we have good water management because we aren't in the deepest level of drought restrictions and it seems like the state has quietly added a fair amount of solar energy which has been keeping our power grid from seeing major issues.
• anonporridge 3y ago
  Because destructive climate change is a condemnation of how we live our comfortable lives in the civilization we've built, and people rightly recognize that fighting it would mean their lives get less comfortable. Therefore, sticking head in sand and going full denial and bargaining is the less painful option. We all worship the beast that feeds us, right until the moment it turns around and devours us.
  • brink 3y ago
    I think you're missing a crucial point in understanding the opposition. It's not about giving up comfort, it's about authorities asking for trust that has either not been earned, or has been destroyed. For example; the Covid lockdowns were a disaster and destroyed a lot of trust. There are a lot of people in that group that would go to war for Trump because they trust him, and war is not comfortable at all.
    • anonporridge 3y ago
      No I'm not. This denialism was already very strong well before the collapse of institutional trust that you're referring to. It goes back many decades, both at an institutional level and a population level. Two things can be true at the same time. 1) We can recognize the measurable physical reality of climate change, the likely devastating impact on life, wealth, and well-being, and the absurdity of believing that all the data around it is an elaborate century long scam, especially when even huge moneyed interests that are condemned by it (e.g. Shell) acknowledge that it's really happening. 2) We can be suspicious of our government's ability to respond to it reasonably and not take advantage of and leverage the tragedy to force unpopular and restrictive changes on their populations.
    • vkou 3y ago
      > it's about authorities asking for trust that has either not been earned, or has been destroyed That's a lazy cop-out, because the alternative to trusting those authorities is trusting business authorities, whom you have zero democratic control over, who have done nothing to earn trust, and who are driven by incredibly powerful, self-serving profit motives to fuck you over. Saying that the public can't fix climate change because you don't trust public institutions, while careening down the road of private institutions causing climate change is illogical nonsense. As Churchill once famously said, public solutions are the worst kinds of solutions, except all the others that have ever been tried.
• tlogan 3y ago
  I believe environmentalists could shift their focus from solely emphasizing climate change to broader environmental degradation that’s visible to everyone. This way, we can frame the issue in a manner that garners widespread support. It’s unfortunate that some discussions around climate change are politically charged, detracting from the core message of environmental preservation.
  • __loam 3y ago
    There's huge lobbies opposing environmentalist messaging so I don't think it's quite right to lay all the blame on them. The fossil fuel industry spends am obscene amount of money on online shit stirring.
    • tlogan 3y ago
      And instead instead of countering solely with scientific data (graphs bla bla), we should use visual evidence: show photos and videos of pollution around coal plants.
      • masklinn 3y ago
        There’s regularly news about people’s tap water being flammable, or city-cized pile of fast fashion garbage in the developing world, or whale carcass filled with plastics. And the reaction is to go purchase a new giant-ass truck and get the engine detuned to roll coal on a cyclist.
        • tlogan 3y ago
          We shouldn't push other side away with statements like yours. It's vital to foster collaboration rather than dismiss their choices or views.
          • masklinn 3y ago
            Ah, you were just concern trolling. Carry on then, sorry for taking your comment seriously.
• ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  All their favorite politicians and news sources have been paid off by the almost unimaginably deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, for over 4 decades. They do indeed have entire parallel constructions of reality where landfills full of plastic are a good thing, and people trying to stop those happening are the real problem. That's regularly suggested here on HN as what really needs to be done to combat climate change.
  • johndevor 3y ago
    Sure, the right is crazy in one direction. But the left has shunned nuclear energy for decades, a viable solution that could have moved us in the right direction. We should be proposing solutions, not blaming one side.
    • vkou 3y ago
      The amount of influence fringe anti-nuke-groups actually have in most governments is ~0%. The better criticism is that the 'left' that actually gets elected has done ~fuck-all to solve the problem, on any of the axes they could push. Of course, actually doing anything would be political suicide, and then the denialist-right gets all the power, and will also continue to do nothing. It's not a 'two sides equivalence' issue. Anti-nuke people aren't the ones in control of the equilibrium, the right is. If the anti-nuke movement disappeared tomorrow, we'd still be in essentially the same pickle we're in. If the denialist-right movement dissapeared tomorrow, we might have some hope of making progress. Just because you found one village idiot, doesn't mean that you should point at him, and shout that the village isn't really any different from the insane asylum up the road. They are not the same.
      • johndevor 3y ago
        > The amount of influence fringe anti-nuke-groups actually have in most governments is ~0%. Are you aware of the closure of many nuclear power plants (Germany & the US specifically)?
    • adrianN 3y ago
• nawgz 3y ago
  > these people surely can’t look at an open pit mine, a plastic-filled landfill, and a smoke-spewing industrial plant and think that’s somehow good for the environment? You think they look at things of their own volition or what? They just rail against the concept holistically and label everything lefty propaganda that's even vaguely adjacent
• nickt 3y ago
  And credit to the NASA social media person for keeping the conversation on-topic and responding with well considered and engaging answers. They must have the patience of a saint!
• TurkishPoptart 3y ago
  >open pit mine, a plastic-filled landfill, and a smoke-spewing industrial plant pollution =/= climate change. it's a separate problem, isn't it?
• hexhexhexagon 3y ago
  [flagged]
• cornercasechase 3y ago
  Twitter sorts all the blue checkmarks to the top so on a thread like this you get blasted with all of Elon’s fan boys who are notorious for both their idiotic takes and their disdain for NASA since they think Space X is superior. It’s like the perfect storm for stupidity.
• TurkishPoptart 3y ago
  Do we have to be logged into Twitter to see comments now?
  • mikestew 3y ago
    Yup. Given the reports of other HN users, I would argue that it's a feature.
  • Corrado 3y ago
    Yes, and I think that NASA probably shouldn't be using "X" as a communication medium as a result. Then again, maybe this X account isn't the main NASA account but someone's side project. I didn't log in to check.
• IKantRead 3y ago
  Existential dread. Nietzsche was right to be concerned with the "death of God". People have a very hard time dealing with the inevitability of our own death and the fundamental meaninglessness of our existence. Even people who think they are comfortable with these concepts tend to still have many tactics of avoiding this reality. For most of human history we solved this problem by pointing to the past (e.g. "when I die I become one with my ancestors") or another world (e.g. "when I die I will leave this vale of tears, and find myself in the world I belong in"). For most of modern society we have replaced this with finding salvation in the future (e.g. "My life is meaningful because my work is contributing to a better future for humanity"). I think most of us, striving to work on hard technical problems, imagine ourselves as ultimately being a small screw in the generation ship that will send humanity into the stars. Or, at the very least, most hope to live on through their children. Catastrophic climate change challenges that fundamental system of meaning many people have established to resist this terror of existence. If society as we know it has no future, this is roughly the same as telling a devote Christian that their is no heaven. No matter how much evidence you gather for this, at a deep level they will be unable to accept this. And if they are able to accept this, it will only because there has been an alternate method of meaning proposed. This is why Nietzsche was so sincerely concerned with the death of God. We can't simply go back to being a world that derives meaning from ancestor worship, or from religion. Sure some subset of the population might "find God", but realistically we can't trivially go back. Nietzsche saw how fragile our systems of meaning had become and worried what society will look like when they start to break down en masse. Nietzsche was write, these climate deniers and many other similar radicals are near perfect representation of Nietzsche's "Last Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man
• wredue 3y ago
  For the record, smoke spewing industrial plants very frequently also have notably, unignorably higher cancer rates in the area as well. So even ignoring the environment, these people are just trying to cancer themselves.
• raincole 3y ago
  "If you don't change your lifestyle completely, and manage to convince everyone you know and 1/2 of voters in your area to do the same, you and your children will die in agony." This is what climate change means. When put so bluntly, it's not hard to see why people get defensive about it. And it's just for the people in developed countries! For developing countries it's even worse: "In the best case, you, everyone you care and love, and your whole race will never ever enjoy the lifestyle and wealth of those in developed countries."
• listenallyall 3y ago
  Lithium mine, Chinese coal-driven industrial factory and finally a landfill... you just described the lifecycle of an electric car battery.
  • VancouverMan 3y ago
    Depending on the region where that battery is used, the electricity used to charge it could also likely be generated by burning coal or natural gas.
• Melting_Harps 3y ago
  > Why does climate change attract all these loonies? Its not just Climate Change, though its rather stark and obvious there for the listed reasons below, but we've come to realize that 99% of social media based tech has been based on profiting from derision and establishing conflicting identity/tribal mindsets, and it's worked out so exceedingly well that even nation state's Intelligence agencies use it for this purpose (see twitter files). It has been immensely lucrative, unless you're Elon and bought an over-inflated company and then ran it into the ground proving that when you venture outside of a domain where you cannot take credit for other People's work you show who and what you really are. Hell, even Dorsey has backed away from Bluesky and is now really backing Nostr, I used to think this was a coup--Dorsey gets to take down the board from Twitter that sullied it and Elon got his next big distraction on the platform he spends shitposting all day on. I was hoping this was to make users migrate to Bluesky and have something really valuable to show for it in the end, but honestly I just expected way too much from Elon and instead he did what all rich idiots do when they are in charge: censor, ban, throttle what he doesn't like. What has happened instead is way more depressing and makes me think social media should just die already, people's speaking habits have deteriorated so much in these last 15 years that it's hard to have a conversation in person with most people who use it.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• shmde 3y ago
  Also why is the majority of it are Americans ? I have this theory that an average american has finished the main quest of life and just doing side quests to troll people. Main quests as in not worried about the stuff needed for basic survival aka food, water and shelter. A well fed rebel without a cause with a government aided financial safety net. Just be contrarian because why not. Soo much free time in their hands that they don't know what to do with it. When you have nothing to fight for anymore no wars etc, you have to create these imaginary boogeymen to keep your sanity in check. Earth is flat, climate change is not real, vax causes autism, Like imagine the time and mental space of these giblet heads.
  • lastingwin 3y ago
    > A well fed rebel without a cause with a government aided financial safety net. There's no safety net in the US and we have the homelessness to prove it. What you're seeing is the right wing roots of the US being used to promote a mix of corporate, government and individual cult-like (think Alex Jones) propaganda. Lots of people in the US are susceptible to that, they've spent generations trying to promote white supremacy, US supremacy... that radicalism is easy to hijack, especially when the "opposition" is also thinly veiled corporate and government propaganda.
• renewiltord 3y ago
  They live rurally. Your argument falls flat because they look around and see greenery and clean air. They look at you living in a grey urban city spewing smoke and smog and see you lecturing them.
• thdespou 3y ago
  Thats the problem with Twitter and its openness. They allow scum like Medvedev to post their Saber rattling left right and center.
• balaji1 3y ago
  genuine question: electric cars have to be worse per car on the environment than a gas-car right now? reasoning: lets compare the carbon footprint of the entire supple chain (production, maintenance, etc) of electric and gas(petrol) cars; guess it is about the same (actually economies of scale for the gas-car side mean per gas-car footprint is lesser right now, but say electric cars also catch up at scale). Then we are down to efficiency diff of the power plant vs ICE. So would you argue: we will be renewable energy powered soon, at that point we need the electric car ecosystem? I understand the push to switch to renewables. But there's enough load on the grid to soak up the production and clean up the air.
  • ceejayoz 3y ago
    No. https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-el... > But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels — either at the tailpipe for conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles. > “A major concern about electric vehicles is that the supply chain, including the mining and processing of raw materials and the manufacturing of batteries, is far from clean,” says Gillingham. “So, if we priced the carbon embodied in these processes, the expectation is electric vehicles would be exorbitantly expensive. It turns out that’s not the case; if you level the playing field by also pricing the carbon in the fossil fuel vehicle supply chain, electric vehicle sales would actually increase.”
    • balaji1 3y ago
      great news. tho it is not intuitive. I will def take a look at the link later, but is it per car or per mile or some normalized comparison?
• lazyant 3y ago
  Because they are the people that think one or more of: - "don't tell me what to do" (government imposing things is Communism). - "god will provide". - "there's no global warming, it's all a scam" (by hippie scholars or to help impose a global world order").
• throwaway22032 3y ago
  It's just individualism. I like to drive my car and I'll keep doing it. I recognise that seven billion people can't do it. My answer to that is to use market mechanisms to ensure that only the elite can drive. If I make it into the elite, great, if not, so be it.