11 ms·

U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked (1989)

67 points by g42gregory 3y ago

maxnoe 3y ago
Carl Sagan testifying in Congress, 1985: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
- hm-nah 3y ago
  > …we are all in this greenhouse together. Wow…this was stated so eloquently, frankly and scientifically when I was 4 years old…in front of the (largely) MEN that could have started the global movement of adjusting our course… I’m going to say it here: Humanity has a man problem. 9(9.9?)% of serial killers, dictators, war criminals, robber barons and generally people in power have one thing in common, they are human males. It is obvious that humanity has been mismanaged by men. For various reasons, they’ve rationalized their way out of taking the necessary action to bring humanity together, under one banner. What are our options at this point?
pipeline_peak 3y ago
>By 2000 Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…
- chickenchicken 3y ago
  reversed by 2000
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  People seem unable to hold these separate thoughts in their head at the same time: - none of the predictions regarding global warming became true - this does not mean that human-induced warming isn't happening - but this also doesn't mean prosperity-ending measures to curb co2 emissions are justified in every case The climate deniers are probably wrong, but so are the climate doomers who have shown a lack of epistemic humility and a failure to weigh the pros and cons of potential interventions. At its worst, its a death cult, and thankfully it seems to be in decline. None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally The Montreal Protocol[1] is the first counterexample to this that comes to mind. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
    - somedude895 3y ago
      I'd like to add the phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs [0], which in Europe happened when I was younger and didn't care about much of anything, but even so I was always impressed by how a ban on something so widespread happened in a somewhat concerted effort without too much resistance in this part of the world. But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs) Did the reduction in fluorocarbons actually impact economies and everyday people in any significant way though? Because CO2 reduction has massive impacts on those, which is why unless all countries are simultaneously willing to incur significant costs on standards of living and economic prosperity, risk stunting developing countries' growth, etc, it simply isn't going to work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        I’m pretty sure it did: CFCs are ridiculously good refrigerants, propellants, etc. Entire supply chains had to be re-rolled around replacements. But the point wasn’t to argue that the scope of the Montreal Protocol is comparable to the scope of the Kyoto Protocol or other international CO2 reduction plans. It was solely to point out that Western countries have contributed meaningfully to global climate protections; shrugging everything off as China’s responsibility is neither sensible nor historically accurate.
      - Syonyk 3y ago
        > But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs) How's your sleep? The blue coming out even the "warm" LEDs is firmly in the bioactive melatonin suppression regions of the spectrum.
- onion2k 3y ago
  Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously… This is what makes climate change a bigger problem - when the models are right and people take action it looks like a waste of time because the issues don't arise because they're mitigated (similar to Y2K really), and when the models are 20, or 30, or 50 years off, or flat out wrong, that means governments can ignore them with impunity. The only time climate science looks right is when the model is correct and no one takes action. The result of this is that where there's a feedback loop that happens over decades or centuries (eg almost all environmental science) governments won't act when the problem is small, so humanity is setting itself up for a much bigger problem in the future. I'm in my late 40s and I don't have kids, so I'm not really sure I care, but if you do have kids and you don't want them to be drafted into wars over habitable land or have to live the second half of their lives on Mars, it might be worthwhile taking the climate seriously. We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. We have a problem to solve for future generations.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. Well, actually we do, because climate change has accelerated to the point that we are threatened too. The 2022 heatwaves in Europe, for example, surpassed the height of the COVID pandemic in excess deaths [1], last year France and Switzerland had serious issues with power as their NPPs didn't have enough cooling water, and wildfires are growing stronger, more frequent and more devastating every year. And that doesn't even take into account invisible threats like thawing permafrost in Russia releasing pathogens that have laid dormant for tens of thousands of years [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/02/zombie-virus-russia-permafrost-thaw/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/0...
golergka 3y ago
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?
- bluejekyll 3y ago
  Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
  - docdeek 3y ago
    The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Right, not to mention that the magnitude is what has largely been used to put blame on one thing or another over the decades following.
    - rigid 3y ago
      It's not that absolutely no countermeasures were taken since 1985. Just take Chinas renewable boom alone. There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I think to credit these guys you'd really have to ignore a lot of factors that were discovered decades later than this outburst, including many previously unknown natural phenomena that would have curbed their estimates had they been discovered prior. Especially in hindsight, it's alarmist.
verisimi 3y ago
It's the branding element of the environmental warnings that are funniest to me. We had Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s about about global cooling and a 'mini ice age'. That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).
- jug 3y ago
  Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh. "Climate change" is used to cover more bases because the effect is not only the warming itself. We learned that you get issues with sticky weather patterns too etc. While the avg yearly temperature of Earth rises, it can also cause effects like extreme cold that sticks in unusual areas.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh. Seriously, in your experience, has it changed? And, if so, how do you determine that? For myself, I've noticed nothing special. Seasons change with some warmer than average some colder than average... But that's weather isn't it - it changeable. I really can't say anything seems that different from my youth. The seas are certainly the same height.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      Wow verisimi noticed nothing special everyone stop we've been wrong all along! You are talking at COP27 right??
      - verisimi 3y ago
        If you don't see anything wrong, but act as if something is wrong because someone told you, that leaves you very open to manipulation. If co2 etc is the biggest disaster ever, shouldn't we be able to see something? Must we take the software models as truth? Do politicians always tell the truth?
- 3y ago
tokai 3y ago
Sad to see all these comments pop up with all kinds of gotchas and disingenuous talking points. On HN of all places. It's not even the denial, but the low quality of it.
- immmmmm 3y ago
  It is very disturbing indeed
- blkhawk 3y ago
  In my experience its very common on HN. Sadly these talking points represent such a large amount of memes that are so entrenched that its akin to talking to flat Earthers or sovereign citizens. The Gish gallop is never ending and due its being a strongly politically-identity coupled you can't hardly convince anybody. there isn't a chance of fruitful debate :/
- infecto 3y ago
  That's society. It is powerful to have all these different opinions. Of course some of them are low-quality but others are terrific. You are only sad because you disagree with the opinions. Like many things in life there is probably a middle-ground where most of the truth sits. Climate doomers who you see post a lot in HN argue that we need to cut consumption back dramatically and humanity will soon perish if we do not. I actually don't see too many extreme climate deniers here but I am sure they exist. Extreme in the sense they would deny humans have any impact on the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    The truth tends to be in the middle of the scientific estimates
a-french-anon 3y ago
Daily reminder that https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_da... happened, and was supposedly "investigated" by a commission (chaired by someone with clear conflict of interest) which found no issues whatsoever; basically snuffed. I suggest you read those damned emails yourself if you want to reach an informed position.
- immmmmm 3y ago
  am i dreaming or you are pushing old conspiracies on HN??? https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
- defrost 3y ago
  Daily reminder that: The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-ab... https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ What's next? Urban heat islands? Cosmic Rays? Heat from the Earths core?
  - a-french-anon 3y ago
    Can you read my last sentence? Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself. By the way, being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean being against measures to reduce pollution (which is the only sensible position).
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself. Have you tried doing that yourself? Or are you only willing to believe the interpretations you want to believe? And yes, "interpretations" is valid — imagine talking about "killing child with fork" to someone who knows nothing about computers, what they would think, how they would react. Would sound a lot like the pizzagate conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? And yet, the reality of those words in the context of Unix is nothing remotely close to that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
g-b-r 3y ago
A lot of people seem to have interpreted the article as saying that by 2000 entire nations would be wiped off the face of earth. Let's read it again. “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels _if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000._ ” 2000 is the limit for _reversing the trend_ ! Not doing that could mean that entire nations etc. at some unspecified time. “ He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. ” Is it clear what it says? “As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, ” ... at some point in time. “Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply” at some point in time! “[...] Refugees [...] coast [...] crops” at some point in time... “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago”. Others pointed out that he's using Fahrenheit. Just check the numbers. “Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, _we have an opportunity to start _the stabilizing process.” “He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees. ″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion”. Nothing too controversial here I think, as well as in the rest of the article. What's left is the disconsolation of seeing "climate skeptics" even in a place like Hacker News. I guess that whatever comes we deserved it.
- water-data-dude 3y ago
  Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious that the article wasn’t claiming we’d be in the middle of armageddon by 2000. I agree that it’s a little unexpected to see several (4 out of 7) replies are from climate skeptics. That being said, the top two comments are this one and the one with a link to a Carl Sagan video, so I’m inclined to think that the majority of people here acknowledge that climate change is a real thing but aren’t interested in wading into an argument with strangers on the internet on this particular topic.

67 points by g42gregory 3y ago

maxnoe 3y ago

Carl Sagan testifying in Congress, 1985: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

hm-nah 3y ago
> …we are all in this greenhouse together. Wow…this was stated so eloquently, frankly and scientifically when I was 4 years old…in front of the (largely) MEN that could have started the global movement of adjusting our course… I’m going to say it here: Humanity has a man problem. 9(9.9?)% of serial killers, dictators, war criminals, robber barons and generally people in power have one thing in common, they are human males. It is obvious that humanity has been mismanaged by men. For various reasons, they’ve rationalized their way out of taking the necessary action to bring humanity together, under one banner. What are our options at this point?

pipeline_peak 3y ago

>By 2000 Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…

chickenchicken 3y ago
reversed by 2000
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
People seem unable to hold these separate thoughts in their head at the same time: - none of the predictions regarding global warming became true - this does not mean that human-induced warming isn't happening - but this also doesn't mean prosperity-ending measures to curb co2 emissions are justified in every case The climate deniers are probably wrong, but so are the climate doomers who have shown a lack of epistemic humility and a failure to weigh the pros and cons of potential interventions. At its worst, its a death cult, and thankfully it seems to be in decline. None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally The Montreal Protocol[1] is the first counterexample to this that comes to mind. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
  - somedude895 3y ago
    I'd like to add the phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs [0], which in Europe happened when I was younger and didn't care about much of anything, but even so I was always impressed by how a ban on something so widespread happened in a somewhat concerted effort without too much resistance in this part of the world. But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs) Did the reduction in fluorocarbons actually impact economies and everyday people in any significant way though? Because CO2 reduction has massive impacts on those, which is why unless all countries are simultaneously willing to incur significant costs on standards of living and economic prosperity, risk stunting developing countries' growth, etc, it simply isn't going to work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I’m pretty sure it did: CFCs are ridiculously good refrigerants, propellants, etc. Entire supply chains had to be re-rolled around replacements. But the point wasn’t to argue that the scope of the Montreal Protocol is comparable to the scope of the Kyoto Protocol or other international CO2 reduction plans. It was solely to point out that Western countries have contributed meaningfully to global climate protections; shrugging everything off as China’s responsibility is neither sensible nor historically accurate.
    - Syonyk 3y ago
      > But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs) How's your sleep? The blue coming out even the "warm" LEDs is firmly in the bioactive melatonin suppression regions of the spectrum.
onion2k 3y ago
Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously… This is what makes climate change a bigger problem - when the models are right and people take action it looks like a waste of time because the issues don't arise because they're mitigated (similar to Y2K really), and when the models are 20, or 30, or 50 years off, or flat out wrong, that means governments can ignore them with impunity. The only time climate science looks right is when the model is correct and no one takes action. The result of this is that where there's a feedback loop that happens over decades or centuries (eg almost all environmental science) governments won't act when the problem is small, so humanity is setting itself up for a much bigger problem in the future. I'm in my late 40s and I don't have kids, so I'm not really sure I care, but if you do have kids and you don't want them to be drafted into wars over habitable land or have to live the second half of their lives on Mars, it might be worthwhile taking the climate seriously. We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. We have a problem to solve for future generations.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. Well, actually we do, because climate change has accelerated to the point that we are threatened too. The 2022 heatwaves in Europe, for example, surpassed the height of the COVID pandemic in excess deaths [1], last year France and Switzerland had serious issues with power as their NPPs didn't have enough cooling water, and wildfires are growing stronger, more frequent and more devastating every year. And that doesn't even take into account invisible threats like thawing permafrost in Russia releasing pathogens that have laid dormant for tens of thousands of years [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/02/zombie-virus-russia-permafrost-thaw/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/0...

golergka 3y ago

> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?

bluejekyll 3y ago
Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
- docdeek 3y ago
  The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Right, not to mention that the magnitude is what has largely been used to put blame on one thing or another over the decades following.
  - rigid 3y ago
    It's not that absolutely no countermeasures were taken since 1985. Just take Chinas renewable boom alone. There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      I think to credit these guys you'd really have to ignore a lot of factors that were discovered decades later than this outburst, including many previously unknown natural phenomena that would have curbed their estimates had they been discovered prior. Especially in hindsight, it's alarmist.

verisimi 3y ago

It's the branding element of the environmental warnings that are funniest to me. We had Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s about about global cooling and a 'mini ice age'. That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).

jug 3y ago
Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh. "Climate change" is used to cover more bases because the effect is not only the warming itself. We learned that you get issues with sticky weather patterns too etc. While the avg yearly temperature of Earth rises, it can also cause effects like extreme cold that sticks in unusual areas.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh. Seriously, in your experience, has it changed? And, if so, how do you determine that? For myself, I've noticed nothing special. Seasons change with some warmer than average some colder than average... But that's weather isn't it - it changeable. I really can't say anything seems that different from my youth. The seas are certainly the same height.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Wow verisimi noticed nothing special everyone stop we've been wrong all along! You are talking at COP27 right??
    - verisimi 3y ago
      If you don't see anything wrong, but act as if something is wrong because someone told you, that leaves you very open to manipulation. If co2 etc is the biggest disaster ever, shouldn't we be able to see something? Must we take the software models as truth? Do politicians always tell the truth?
3y ago

tokai 3y ago

Sad to see all these comments pop up with all kinds of gotchas and disingenuous talking points. On HN of all places. It's not even the denial, but the low quality of it.

immmmmm 3y ago
It is very disturbing indeed
blkhawk 3y ago
In my experience its very common on HN. Sadly these talking points represent such a large amount of memes that are so entrenched that its akin to talking to flat Earthers or sovereign citizens. The Gish gallop is never ending and due its being a strongly politically-identity coupled you can't hardly convince anybody. there isn't a chance of fruitful debate :/
infecto 3y ago
That's society. It is powerful to have all these different opinions. Of course some of them are low-quality but others are terrific. You are only sad because you disagree with the opinions. Like many things in life there is probably a middle-ground where most of the truth sits. Climate doomers who you see post a lot in HN argue that we need to cut consumption back dramatically and humanity will soon perish if we do not. I actually don't see too many extreme climate deniers here but I am sure they exist. Extreme in the sense they would deny humans have any impact on the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  The truth tends to be in the middle of the scientific estimates

a-french-anon 3y ago

Daily reminder that https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_da... happened, and was supposedly "investigated" by a commission (chaired by someone with clear conflict of interest) which found no issues whatsoever; basically snuffed. I suggest you read those damned emails yourself if you want to reach an informed position.

immmmmm 3y ago
am i dreaming or you are pushing old conspiracies on HN??? https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
defrost 3y ago
Daily reminder that: The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-ab... https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ What's next? Urban heat islands? Cosmic Rays? Heat from the Earths core?
- a-french-anon 3y ago
  Can you read my last sentence? Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself. By the way, being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean being against measures to reduce pollution (which is the only sensible position).
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself. Have you tried doing that yourself? Or are you only willing to believe the interpretations you want to believe? And yes, "interpretations" is valid — imagine talking about "killing child with fork" to someone who knows nothing about computers, what they would think, how they would react. Would sound a lot like the pizzagate conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? And yet, the reality of those words in the context of Unix is nothing remotely close to that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

g-b-r 3y ago

A lot of people seem to have interpreted the article as saying that by 2000 entire nations would be wiped off the face of earth. Let's read it again. “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels _if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000._ ” 2000 is the limit for _reversing the trend_ ! Not doing that could mean that entire nations etc. at some unspecified time. “ He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. ” Is it clear what it says? “As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, ” ... at some point in time. “Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply” at some point in time! “[...] Refugees [...] coast [...] crops” at some point in time... “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago”. Others pointed out that he's using Fahrenheit. Just check the numbers. “Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, _we have an opportunity to start _the stabilizing process.” “He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees. ″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion”. Nothing too controversial here I think, as well as in the rest of the article. What's left is the disconsolation of seeing "climate skeptics" even in a place like Hacker News. I guess that whatever comes we deserved it.

water-data-dude 3y ago
Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious that the article wasn’t claiming we’d be in the middle of armageddon by 2000. I agree that it’s a little unexpected to see several (4 out of 7) replies are from climate skeptics. That being said, the top two comments are this one and the one with a link to a Carl Sagan video, so I’m inclined to think that the majority of people here acknowledge that climate change is a real thing but aren’t interested in wading into an argument with strangers on the internet on this particular topic.