Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I have a major in History actually so I know that both cultish fatalism, religious determinism and apocalyptic paranoia has run through all of history.

None of them backed up by science like today.

Don't you believe in climate science? You say those of us who don't believe. Are you on some kind of 3% fringe the doesn't believe in the reports of the last year? I certainly hope you are right but my good friends in the natural sciences are all very serious about this at the moment - why should 95% of climate scientists be wrong?






> why should 95% of climate scientists be wrong?

Because consensus does not mean correctness, we cannot assume that they are right.

It's a good signal, for sure, but 95% of scientists have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again.

I also have friends who work on these things, so I totally understand where you are coming from in hearing about such serious things and having that weigh upon you.

However, I am also quite serious and passionate about my area of expertise and could definitely alarm people about the impending doom of things related to security.

I've noticed in this thread you seem to be overwhelmed by this seriousness. For that, I have no particular advice, but I do hope that something in here helps you find some hope for our future. Maybe that magical technology to reverse things will appear when we need it most - maybe you will help create it!

[edit: for some reason I was downvoted, for which I assume resulted from an assumption on my position. My position is that we are not without hope, not that there is nothing to worry about. I would like to pass some of that hope onto the currently hopeless individual I have replied to]


> Maybe that magical technology to reverse things will appear

Or maybe the OP will dissociate their identity from inherited ideas of endless 'progress' etc? After all, it would be an astonishing feat of exaptation for a cluster of cognitive/conative/affective processes evolved for a species to cope with challenges faced by small-scale tribal societies to also just happen to be a good fit for managing a network of planetary ecologies. It was never very likely to happen, and it didn't. No great surprise.


Actually, that number should be 97%. And it isn’t number of scientists, it’s the number of papers in a corpus of about 12000 that supports the premise that humans are causing global warming.

For this IPCC report it might be more interesting to know that it is the work of about 90 authors summarizing the findings of about 6000 papers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: