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

Here is the link to the actual report:

https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aax35...

People should try reading the actual science instead of some journalist's cherry-picked take on the science. It's also interesting that Disney ("evil media corporation") now controls NatGeo.

As Bill Gates recently noted, climate alarmists are more of a problem than the "deniers." Here's a story from the BBC this week titled, Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

This is getting ridiculous. The submitter, in this case, appears to have issues with civility, and is obsessively submitting climate related articles for an account that's less than 60 days.




The BBC story reminded me of Al Gore's 2006 prediction that stated unless nations took “drastic measures” then the Earth "would reach a point of no return within 10 years."[1]

It's weird how the deadline for point of no return is being pushed ahead every few years.

1. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/annabel-scott/gore-dodges-fact-...


So, when do you think the point of no return is now? I've read that even if we stop all CO2 emissions now the heating will continue for quite some time before nature gets the 410ppm back to 350ppm or wherever it needs to be for stable state. So, in a way we're way past the point of no return and we probably were in 2006 already.

Ah yes, looking into it further, here is the claim: "25-50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60 percent of its equilibrium response"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2005/04/28/...


Do you have a link to Gates saying alarmism is the greater problem? I’m curious as to exactly what he said and I can’t find it.


It was from a live stream of a conference/interview that happened at the end of Feb. or March. I did read something about it at the time, but it wasn't the headline, nor am I likely to have gotten the phrasing correct exactly.

PEW put out a practical plan to address the issue a couple months ago that actually goes through the trade-offs, and then makes recommendations.


One problem with the current data ecosystem is that often misinformation is free, while hard science (and other reliable sources) are hidden behind paywalls. For example, I can read the abstract, which doesn't seem to conflict with the OP, but if I want to see the full text, I'm SOL.

I even have the Unpaywall extension installed (http://unpaywall.org), precisely to avoid this situation, but unfortunately the extension wasn't able to find a free version of this article.

This is one reason Open Access publishing is so crucially important to the public discourse. "Alternate facts" will win if people can read them for free but must pay to read peer-reviewed science.

Whether or not you think National Geographic has mischaracterized the science in this instance, I hope we can all agree that access to the original source would help everyone get their facts straight.


[flagged]


>Denial doesn't help

The problem is that people who do not want to enact federal policy that decimates the US economy (i.e. "Green New Deal"), are deemed "deniers." I'm not into extremism. The US emits 15% of GHG, and until you can get a commitment from countries where they are building new coal plants to this day, it's difficult to take seriously.

"Since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union."

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat...


> The problem is that people who do not want to enact federal policy that decimates the US economy (i.e. "Green New Deal"), are deemed "deniers".

The problem is the lack of any alternate policy put forward, especially one that can compete with the flexibility, cost effectiveness and proven track record of emissions pricing. There aren't two competing solutions, there's one proposed solution up against wishful thinking.

> The US emits 15% of GHG, and until you can get a commitment from countries where they are building new coal plants to this day, it's difficult to take seriously.

And it's an indication of the trajectory of the US that they are no longer willing to be world leaders. Had they not done their best to sabotage previous efforts at international agreements we'd be well on our way to including developing countries, if not already there, and punishing those that don't sign on.

You also can't just look at current emissions, you have to consider how much CO2 already in the atmosphere the developed world contributed too, which is nearly all of it.


>federal policy that decimates the US economy

Either we tackle this problem in a timely way by choosing our tactics thoughtfully, or the near future will be decimated by an uncaring set of physics principles.

We must choose wisely.


You're too clueless to understand that the number one thing that is extremist is emitting so much CO2. It's pointless to debate anything with someone of significantly dissimilar intelligence.


We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: