5 ms·

No, the real question is how to keep the earth from being cooked by greenhouse gases, not in 500 million years, but actually in a few decades. This article bord

No, the real question is how to keep the earth from being cooked by greenhouse gases, not in 500 million years, but actually in a few decades. This article borders on climate change denial.

southernplaces7 2y ago
How the hell is it climate change denial for someone to speak at all of a completely different problem from that of human-caused climate change? It is possible to be interested in and worried about different things simultaneously. Absurdly intolerant claims like yours border on similarity to a hysterical, religious fervor against the idea of praying to any other god.
mewpmewp2 2y ago
Multiple problems can exist at the same time.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Let's try to fix the things that hurt us on a human scale, with the technological and social stability that nets us we're in a much better place to tackle problems way further down the line. No human society has lasted even a fraction of those 500 million years so anything we do now to beat that is going to be moot anyway
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Because of one problem, we are not allowed to talk about other interesting ideas? Why not just allow only topics on Hackernews where the specified problem is mentioned as the foremost issue. Also this article actually did highlight the imminent problem. > (our wanton carbon emissions notwithstanding). Still climate change denial?
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Ah no of course we can talk about it, it's interesting research. I just wouldn't invest a penny into "fixing" it, that's all.
- nsonha 2y ago
  I don't think the article is climate change denial but if it's true that the Sun is getting hotter then man-made global warming will not be significant comparing to that.
fooker 2y ago
Is it a few decades from 1980 or a few decades from 2024? Alarmist statements hurt more than they help fight human caused climate change.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Given that CO2 emissions have only ever increased, it seems like everything hurts more than helps the fight against climate change. For what it’s worth, I’m reasonably convinced that the answer is 1980 and that, like a lethal dose of radiation, the damage is done and now we merely wait for the effects to take hold fully.
- realusername 2y ago
  I'm starting to get that there's no good way to talk about climate change, especially to people which have a vested interest not to hear about it.
  - europeanNyan 2y ago
    Maybe people are just tired from the same old alarmism which is then used to introduce more and more limitations and never touches the biggest offenders. Sure, introduce the next tax, lovely. Hope Nestle doesn't get touched.
    - realusername 2y ago
      The measures against climate change have been so weak until now that I don't think we can even talk about limitations yet. At least there's some equality here I guess, nobody doesn't do anything.
      - fooker 2y ago
        The measures against climate change has been weak precisely because of alarmism. If everything is going to shit anyways, why throw resources into a black hole fixing it today? Check how many headlines have been saying inevitable, point of no return, etc etc for several decades. Another aspect of this is overfitting on metrics like CO2 emissions, that's how you get hot garbage like carbon offsets that allow the worst offenders to keep operating like they have always been.
holoduke 2y ago
Apologies for being rude, but these kind of answers are exactly the type of answers that sre not helping solving things at all and are counterreactive. This article is not denying anything. Its telling something entirely different. Also it tries to give a slightly different look on things than usual.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  If anything such sentiment is actively harmful to the topic, since claiming it's bordering on climate denial, borders on censorship to me. Even though I believe climate change is real, I could see how it would irk me against the whole movement when it's the only thing you are allowed to talk about. The post in its first paragraph literally brings up how we are actively harming the planet with carbon emissions, so it's not even that they didn't mention it or went against it.

No, the real question is how to keep the earth from being cooked by greenhouse gases, not in 500 million years, but actually in a few decades. This article borders on climate change denial.

southernplaces7 2y ago

How the hell is it climate change denial for someone to speak at all of a completely different problem from that of human-caused climate change? It is possible to be interested in and worried about different things simultaneously. Absurdly intolerant claims like yours border on similarity to a hysterical, religious fervor against the idea of praying to any other god.

mewpmewp2 2y ago

Multiple problems can exist at the same time.

wkat4242 2y ago
Let's try to fix the things that hurt us on a human scale, with the technological and social stability that nets us we're in a much better place to tackle problems way further down the line. No human society has lasted even a fraction of those 500 million years so anything we do now to beat that is going to be moot anyway
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Because of one problem, we are not allowed to talk about other interesting ideas? Why not just allow only topics on Hackernews where the specified problem is mentioned as the foremost issue. Also this article actually did highlight the imminent problem. > (our wanton carbon emissions notwithstanding). Still climate change denial?
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Ah no of course we can talk about it, it's interesting research. I just wouldn't invest a penny into "fixing" it, that's all.
nsonha 2y ago
I don't think the article is climate change denial but if it's true that the Sun is getting hotter then man-made global warming will not be significant comparing to that.

fooker 2y ago

Is it a few decades from 1980 or a few decades from 2024? Alarmist statements hurt more than they help fight human caused climate change.

silverquiet 2y ago
Given that CO2 emissions have only ever increased, it seems like everything hurts more than helps the fight against climate change. For what it’s worth, I’m reasonably convinced that the answer is 1980 and that, like a lethal dose of radiation, the damage is done and now we merely wait for the effects to take hold fully.
realusername 2y ago
I'm starting to get that there's no good way to talk about climate change, especially to people which have a vested interest not to hear about it.
- europeanNyan 2y ago
  Maybe people are just tired from the same old alarmism which is then used to introduce more and more limitations and never touches the biggest offenders. Sure, introduce the next tax, lovely. Hope Nestle doesn't get touched.
  - realusername 2y ago
    The measures against climate change have been so weak until now that I don't think we can even talk about limitations yet. At least there's some equality here I guess, nobody doesn't do anything.
    - fooker 2y ago
      The measures against climate change has been weak precisely because of alarmism. If everything is going to shit anyways, why throw resources into a black hole fixing it today? Check how many headlines have been saying inevitable, point of no return, etc etc for several decades. Another aspect of this is overfitting on metrics like CO2 emissions, that's how you get hot garbage like carbon offsets that allow the worst offenders to keep operating like they have always been.

holoduke 2y ago

Apologies for being rude, but these kind of answers are exactly the type of answers that sre not helping solving things at all and are counterreactive. This article is not denying anything. Its telling something entirely different. Also it tries to give a slightly different look on things than usual.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
If anything such sentiment is actively harmful to the topic, since claiming it's bordering on climate denial, borders on censorship to me. Even though I believe climate change is real, I could see how it would irk me against the whole movement when it's the only thing you are allowed to talk about. The post in its first paragraph literally brings up how we are actively harming the planet with carbon emissions, so it's not even that they didn't mention it or went against it.