4 ms·

> This climate change thing has not only become an excuse for government incompetence (fires, infrastructure failure, etc) They can both be true at the same ti

> This climate change thing has not only become an excuse for government incompetence (fires, infrastructure failure, etc) They can both be true at the same time, and it pains me to be reading this type of stuff on hacker news. This climate change 'thing' was predicted and talked about for decades while deniers said it was bullshit. When the effects are visible, it's actually just 'government incompetence'. When the government tries to shape up and propose a plan to deal with it, the plan is struck down as being 'neo-marxist' or 'radical left' because again, climate change is 'bullshit'. I swear, it seems like we live in a more ridiculous reality than 'Don't look up'.

Alupis 3y ago
*Bad plans are struck down, because they're bad. The "do something, anything" crowd got to run the show for a bit and the results were nothing like promised. Things like plastic straw bans that accomplish nothing, or ideas like banning airplanes entirely. These are radical extremist ideological views driven by fear and emotion - just like religion. Climate change activists shoot their own foot off with every opportunity. Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. It's a religion today. And just like other religions, it has it's own purity and ideology tests.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Ah, it's Sir Humphrey Appleby. >Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric We did, 50 years ago say "whoa, lets slow down this climate change thing" And guess what. We didn't. And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now".
  - Alupis 3y ago
    > And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now". You just did it again - that's the sensationalism that is not helpful. The world is not ending tomorrow or anytime soon. People need to cool it with that rhetoric because you lose everyone that's not already signed up for Sunday school.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. Bollocks - that was done. In the US the American Engineers Society(?) proposed necessary and required changes to infrastructure alongside required maintainance of existing infrastructure for almost two decades (possibly longer). Nothing was done about any of that until recently .. and the amount committed was still under the total recommended for upkeep alone.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Citation for these sane and gradual changes? Were they thought out or just political signals? In the US, unfortunately the overwhelming majority of climate change propositions are ill-thought political rhetoric, which sets back actual progress. Look at recent changes. CA banned single-use plastic bags because someone said incorrectly they contributed to that huge floating plastic island in the pacific. Turns out, that floating plastic island is made up of fishing equipment - and our replacement for the plastic bags use vastly more resources to create so the net effect has been negative. We need real proposals - not feel-good proposals.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Citation for these sane and gradual changes? Sure - read back through the history of https://infrastructurereportcard.org/ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/ Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure depicts the condition and performance of American infrastructure in the familiar form of a school report card. Engineers make real proposals, with costings. They have summaries of what's broken and what's needed going back to 1988 (at least) and have been largely ignored by the US decision makers throughout that time. The US DoD has frequently reported on the need for climate mitigating changes to defence infrastructure, harbours, fuel stores, etc - that can get thrown into the mix also. As you're throwing shade on the problems you'd do well to look to the most egregious villians here - the Koch brothers and their immediate circle in the fossil fuel industries who went into overdrive in the 1970s (when climate change caused by human activity was internationally accepted and recognised as a real and pressing issue) and funded a network of think tanks (Heartland et al). The production and placement of distraction pieces in the media ("We're headed for an Ice Age says prominant climate scientist!!" etc) to really confuse and FUD up the issue was one thing, they had deep pockets and did it well, but ... Look up Koch public transit, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... They started that very early and literally killed sane gradual change. The US public broadly overwhelmingly supported good public transport (reduced car travel, better fuel economy at scale per mile, etc) and at every turn anytime a sensible public transit system was proposed they undercut and killed it with deep pockets, simply to keep sellling more and more oil and turn a profit.
- Spk--17 3y ago
  Scientific data shows a trend and this is not the stock market where you can expect anything random. What is dogmatic? Our ignorance in dogmatics? Truth is objective and doesn't give a damn if it's dogmatic or not, every action has a reaction.

Alupis 3y ago

*Bad plans are struck down, because they're bad. The "do something, anything" crowd got to run the show for a bit and the results were nothing like promised. Things like plastic straw bans that accomplish nothing, or ideas like banning airplanes entirely. These are radical extremist ideological views driven by fear and emotion - just like religion. Climate change activists shoot their own foot off with every opportunity. Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. It's a religion today. And just like other religions, it has it's own purity and ideology tests.

pixl97 3y ago
Ah, it's Sir Humphrey Appleby. >Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric We did, 50 years ago say "whoa, lets slow down this climate change thing" And guess what. We didn't. And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now".
- Alupis 3y ago
  > And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now". You just did it again - that's the sensationalism that is not helpful. The world is not ending tomorrow or anytime soon. People need to cool it with that rhetoric because you lose everyone that's not already signed up for Sunday school.
defrost 3y ago
> Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. Bollocks - that was done. In the US the American Engineers Society(?) proposed necessary and required changes to infrastructure alongside required maintainance of existing infrastructure for almost two decades (possibly longer). Nothing was done about any of that until recently .. and the amount committed was still under the total recommended for upkeep alone.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Citation for these sane and gradual changes? Were they thought out or just political signals? In the US, unfortunately the overwhelming majority of climate change propositions are ill-thought political rhetoric, which sets back actual progress. Look at recent changes. CA banned single-use plastic bags because someone said incorrectly they contributed to that huge floating plastic island in the pacific. Turns out, that floating plastic island is made up of fishing equipment - and our replacement for the plastic bags use vastly more resources to create so the net effect has been negative. We need real proposals - not feel-good proposals.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Citation for these sane and gradual changes? Sure - read back through the history of https://infrastructurereportcard.org/ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/ Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure depicts the condition and performance of American infrastructure in the familiar form of a school report card. Engineers make real proposals, with costings. They have summaries of what's broken and what's needed going back to 1988 (at least) and have been largely ignored by the US decision makers throughout that time. The US DoD has frequently reported on the need for climate mitigating changes to defence infrastructure, harbours, fuel stores, etc - that can get thrown into the mix also. As you're throwing shade on the problems you'd do well to look to the most egregious villians here - the Koch brothers and their immediate circle in the fossil fuel industries who went into overdrive in the 1970s (when climate change caused by human activity was internationally accepted and recognised as a real and pressing issue) and funded a network of think tanks (Heartland et al). The production and placement of distraction pieces in the media ("We're headed for an Ice Age says prominant climate scientist!!" etc) to really confuse and FUD up the issue was one thing, they had deep pockets and did it well, but ... Look up Koch public transit, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... They started that very early and literally killed sane gradual change. The US public broadly overwhelmingly supported good public transport (reduced car travel, better fuel economy at scale per mile, etc) and at every turn anytime a sensible public transit system was proposed they undercut and killed it with deep pockets, simply to keep sellling more and more oil and turn a profit.
Spk--17 3y ago
Scientific data shows a trend and this is not the stock market where you can expect anything random. What is dogmatic? Our ignorance in dogmatics? Truth is objective and doesn't give a damn if it's dogmatic or not, every action has a reaction.