
July on course to be hottest month ever, say climate scientists - ForHackernews
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/16/july-on-course-to-be-hottest-month-ever-say-climate-scientists
======
chiefalchemist
I believe the climate is changing.

I believe humans are contributing to the acceleration of that change.

I believe how we discuss a problem affects how we are able - or not - to solve
it.

I __do not__ believe hyperbol-y headlines are going to help. That is, using
the word "ever" as a proxy / synonym for "recorded history" or "human history"
should not be acceptable. We need accuracy. We don't need exaggeration.

~~~
kemiller2002
I honestly believe that this is one of the main reasons why there is so much
push back on climate change. Every time scientists say something catastrophic
might happen (even though it might be true), I think people look at it and
think that it must not be possible. If we were a little better in choosing the
words we used to convey its urgency, I think it would reach a lot more people.

~~~
core-questions
Well, first, we need to decide if the average person is expected to have to
take personal initiative (i.e. over and above what is actually required of
them by society / law) in order for this problem to be solved. If that's the
situation, we can safely assume a solution won't be forthcoming because, on
the whole, most people will not do more than they need to.

If we do need people to step it up, we have to ensure that we're not losing
credibility. July has been a cool, wet month where I live, certainly not as
warm as last year, so when we get articles saying "IT'S A CLIMATE EMERGENCY,
HOTTEST MONTH EVER", and meanwhile I'm sending my kids off to school / daycare
with sweatshirts in case the cloud cover sticks around... yeah. I can
recognize the data, and I can believe that overall things are hotter, but it's
not meshing up with personal experience, and so it makes it bloody difficult
to, say, leverage my finances in order to buy an electric car (when my
reasonably-efficient gas car is working fine and has decades of useful life
left), and so forth.

"Climate emergency" rhetoric is simply going to burn everyone out and get
laughed at, even if it's true.

I think we should focus more on changes that don't require individual action
over and above the norm. Legislating a new normal is hard, but more productive
than voluntary change.

~~~
chiefalchemist
> "Climate emergency" rhetoric is simply going to burn everyone out and get
> laughed at, even if it's true.

To your point, it doesn't help that the weather - for local and national
"news" \- is used an attention and sensationalism tool.

The threat of couple inches of snow is The Rapture. The possibility of an
above average rain storm is Armageddon. When these things don't live up to
that hype the public subconsciously loses faith. Add in a complete lack of
leadership (to get the public involved) and most ppl just consider it another
"what can I do?" issue.

I don't blame them. I don't necessarily agree. But I understand why they feel
that way.

~~~
core-questions
I'm sure you realize that this is why the term "fake news" exists today, and
isn't even wrong.

------
brendanmc6
I'd like to hear HNs opinions on carbon offsetting. Do any of you regularly
purchase offsets voluntarily? If not, what would it take to convince you that
offsetting your flights, vacation, or monthly lifestyle is a worthwhile
expense?

Recently there was an article that topped both HN and Reddit, saying something
like "planting 1T trees could be a cheap solution to climate change". It
seemed like people at found the idea attractive, for whatever reason.

Yet I've hardly ever seen any mention of offsetting... a big segment of the
voluntary offset market is certified forest restoration and protection.

Would love to hear more opinions on this.

Disclosure-- I am working on launching a company that aims to drive the
purchase of offsets.

~~~
ForHackernews
I buy carbon offsets, because it helps me feel better about the fact that I
believe we are doomed. At least it won't be (as much) my fault personally.

This article has been [flagged] for "sensationalism", apparently. The
situation is extremely dire, and getting worse, but people don't want to hear
it.

They want a quick fix geoengineering, or magic nuclear (about 30 years too
late for that, guys), or just to bury their heads in the sand and assume it
won't be that bad.

~~~
brendanmc6
I agree. I have seen enough HN climate discussions to say that a "tech will
save us" mindset is quite common around here.

Where do you buy your offsets from? Any problems or complaints about your
offsetting "experience" so far? I'm trying to come up with creative ways to
add value and make it a more attractive investment for people.

~~~
ForHackernews
I got them here [https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-
emissio...](https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions) I
think because some research I did a while back led me to consider that site
reputable and not just greenwashing.

I think the biggest thing you could do would be to bundle them in
automatically to the purchase of things like airline tickets or gasoline, and
make them opt-out, not opt-in. Imagine if when you booked a flight, the last
page said "The price of your ticket includes $15 to help stave off
environmental disaster. Click here to kill adorable baby penguins and save
fifteen bucks."

------
algaeontoast
I think most educated people now days are aware that the earth is "getting
hotter". Articles like this seem to just monger fear and not really encourage
steps we can take to continue improving the environment and adapting renewable
and reasonable sources of energy like nuclear.

~~~
chiefalchemist
There are a small percentage of flat out deniers. They are fringe. Their
numbers overestimated.

On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a
major contributing factor." Given what we know about the planet's history it's
foolish to consider these ppl deniers. They believe. It's the cause they don't
agree with.

This is becoming a classic case of too many people being worried about the
wrong problem. Deniers aren't the issue. It's the "it ain't because of humans"
cluster.

~~~
acdha
> On the other hand there is a large group of "I don't believe humans are a
> major contributing factor."

I think that group is much smaller than the group of people who don't want to
make significant lifestyle changes and are hoping that things won't get bad
until after they're dead. Unfortunately there isn't a good way to break that
cycle without confronting the problem — just as is the case for anything else
where the feedback is substantially delayed. The thing which will probably
move the needle on climate change will be insurance skyrocketing or
disappearing and governments choosing not to rebuild in high-risk areas,
because that will make the risk real enough not to downplay.

------
dev_dull
Can someone comment about this recent study: "Effect of human activity on
climate change insignificant"[1]?

1\. [http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-
news/domestic/16...](http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-
news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-
change-insignificant.html)

~~~
lumberjack
"The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate
scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi.
Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and
Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or
sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce
climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points." FTA you
linked but didn't read.

~~~
sampo
> The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed

Not defending the content of the paper (haven't read it), but it's really
stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a _preprint
server_ for not being peer reviewed.

~~~
acdha
> it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to
> a preprint server for not being peer reviewed.

Isn't the entire point of the peer review process to have experts in the field
review the methodology and reasoning? It seems reasonable to note that
although something may appear to be an academic paper it has not yet been
reviewed and thus is more likely to have problems.

~~~
sampo
Pretty much all physics papers/manuscripts are first available on the arXiv
server, while the authors are waiting for the journal peer review process,
which takes several months, to go through. That's how physicists have worked
for over 20 years already.

You could take any physics paper/manuscript in its pre peer review state, and
criticize it for not being peer reviewed.

