Hysterical website brought to you by Center for American Progress.
From their website
Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.
addendum: for those confused, this is political advocacy and its probably not a good idea to post this stuff here unless you want HN to become reddit. Oh, how can it be advocacy if everything is true? Sometimes its not what you say, but what you leave out.
Ad Hominem by association you mean? I'm not "attacking" the website because of its associations, just pointing out its associations are very very partisan and therefore the site probably shouldn't be posted here.
I agree, I don't find politics-and-science to be good bunk-buddies. They selected 10 out of a huge list, all good articles but are they a true representation of the progress in climate science or are they the top-10 list for Climategate potentials from biased over-estimated distortions of evidence.
All the climategate research, at least what I could tell, pointed to global warming. Just not as much as the authors wanted though.
Given that most of the article is made of highlights from 10 scientific articles published in such high profile reviews as Nature, Science, or Nature Geoscience, I do not think you can reduce it to "political advocacy" from a "hysterical website".
Ignoring the 'hysterical' epitaph for a moment, it is fair to note that the website is openly a political website.
Selecting high quality scientific articles to bolster my political argument doesn't stop my aim being political - it may just mean that I have a convincing argument!
It is fair to be wary, however, of the process of selection in situations like this - these were 10 articles selected from many. Why were they chosen? Was the process of choosing neutral (such as in an independent literature survey) or political in nature?
This is where the nature of the site may give reason to look more closely, especially where they top and tail the actual science with partisan name calling, such as the reference to people concerned with the transparency and reliability of the climate science processes (ie 'Climategate') as the "anti-science crowd".
The argument that "HN is not Reddit" is one that should be taken seriously. Yes, there are some political links on HN unrelated to the tech industry or entrepreneurialism that have been interesting and fostered good discussion. The question is, how do we separate the good stuff from the tired propaganda?
First of all, any political link that uses sensationalism should probably be avoided.
Second, rehashing of an old issue everyone knows about already (like global warming, or the federal deficit) isn't particularly useful.
As a disclaimer, I should first say that I haven't read any of these papers in detail and that I therefore can't comment on their validity. I also don't wish to take a pro- or anti-environmentalist stance. I'm strictly neutral. I'm just talking about the nature of research publications.
Many of us in acadaemia are aware of a perceived phenomenon whereby "fashionable" (for want of a better word) topics get published and/or attract research. From a cynical (yet often accurate) perspective, researchers have become adept at framing their research proposals in the context of the topic du jour. I'm not saying the research is bad, just that funding is easier if you mention buzzwords.
My point is that acadaemia goes through cycles of particular interest in certain topics. The funding gets allocated to it and the journals are more likely to publish research relevant to the "fashionable" topic than other research. Now, I'm not saying the research is flawed; just that if you fund research into environmental change, you're probably going to find a lot of environmental change. If tomorrow you decide to massively fund research into extraterrestrial life, you will see a surge of papers in high-impact journals about that very subject. The environmental change hasn't gone away, it's just that fewer people are trying to publish data about it.
Perhaps for that reason we shouldn't be impressed by the sheer volume of research or the perceived quality of the publishing journals. We shouldn't panic because the number of papers on the subject has increased by several orders of magnitude in recent years. We should get a clear picture of what is going on, ignoring the funding bias, and once we have analysed the data from a balanced perspective and we see that it spells certain doom for all of us, then we can panic. ;)
I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with "Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!
There is nothing wrong with the science, I just find this specific presentation of them extreme and off putting. Particularly the use of words like "catastrophe" and "gravest threat" etc.
The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary.
I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that this is a well concluded blog post. Instead I think it is very political and probably unhelpful.
There clearly is an issue with the media focusing on Climategate, I don't think this is a successful way to raise that. And I maintain the tone of the piece is breathy and hysterical.
Given that there is nothing wrong with the science and the fact that mankind can't even manage to stop the smaller-scale climate change that we thought we'd have to face, I fail to see how something like thawing permafrost - which will make the problem much worse, much quicker - can possibly be described as something other than a catastrophe.
Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe?
(The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
Not relevant, really, to the point I was making. Terrorism is a modern threat; but I am sure you'll agree that when governments describe it as "hanging over us" and "the greatest threat we face today" you would agree that is silly, over dramatic and unhelpful to address the problem (because it's only real effect is to make some people afraid). Another example; the bird flu "pandemic" that never was. This is an identical problem.
Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.
When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes.
In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :)
What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
To compare the impact of climate change to the impact of terrorism, you must factor in how many people are affected. They are not comparable.
> Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.
We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.
> In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action
How is your martian cave? ;)
> ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves.
I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.
Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger)
If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.
Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning.
This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped?
Answer: It hasn't.
I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever
Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;)
But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.
The only option open to us is spreading awareness,
On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things.
The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating).
We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.
So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.
> Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me
I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production.
> This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't.
The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?
> Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.
I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.
> However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace
Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;)
> We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.
I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.
> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here.
There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime.
>The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?
It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two!
> Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.
Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill.
You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;)
> and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all
This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years.
Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas.
We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.
> This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years.
This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"?
The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system.
And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.
If there is indeed nothing wrong with the science, then there is a "clear and present danger" of a "catastrophe". In which case, what's wrong with saying so? (Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a sensible thing to do if the theatre actually is on fire. Though in that particular case there might be safer ways to begin.)
That's actually a non sequitur; there is nothing wrong with the science, but there is no need to define it as a catastrophe. There is plenty of time to have a meaningful discussion without yelling words like that :) There is this theory, I fear, that it tries to imply the gravity of the situation... all of which is pointless.
Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated aims.
To extend your theatre analogy. Shouting "fire" in a theatre during the first half when it looks relatively likely a fire will start in the second half is definitely counter-productive. :)
My point is; this is entirely the wrong, unethical, political and hysterical way to present important science and raise the issues. Do it right, or not at all IMO.
I didn't say there's a need to define it as a catastrophe. I said: If the science is as claimed, then we may in fact be facing something that meets any reasonable person's definition of a catastrophe, and there's nothing wrong with saying so.
If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is.
What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)
> what the HN community thinks about this article.
If you really want to know, I think that this article and all the other ones about the TSA, politics, and similar topics that are not strictly about startups or hacking should not be here.
You have a zillion places on the internet to discuss that stuff - reddit comes to mind - do you really have to pollute this one too?
Some would welcome an existential threat to humanity as an opportunity to innovate our way out of this mess. Right now, we lack a common goal & survival tends to be a strong motivator. We can't go back to the woods, but maybe we can build a habitat that includes some woods & maybe some species that are required for human survival. Think about it as building a Minimum Viable Planet. Now that is a startup.
I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing.
Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."
If I was being absolutely honest - the first thing I do when I see any maps about climate change is check what the predicated changes are for my location.
The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.
Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe: “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”
I look away from the glow of this noisy MacBook, and ponder how foolish I am to be typing this on a computer that in only a few distant years from now will no longer work. I know that global ocean temperatures have been rising steadily for the past 100 hundred years -- this is based on maps of world ocean temperatures displayed to the public in the lobby of an Ocean Sciences building that I was able to view years ago.
Sure maybe this like many other sources sensationalizes things but one of the problems with climate is that I just can't see worldwide action until either it is right in governments faces ie. to late, or they are drawn in my sensationalist tones on correct science.
Climate is one of those things that governments will be able to wash there hands of if everything turns bad, because no one can be 100% sure of causes and the whole climate gate thing the article was referring to.
I don't really expect any drastic action as unless every country acts those who don't will have a big trading advantage, at least in the short term.
This starts at home; and always will do if we want to make a difference.
Reduce your energy usage, buy local produce, install solar (and other sustainable) power. All of these changes can be done for very little additional cost. And if you really care it is the approach to take.
With enough of us doing these things it increases pressure and awareness a lot more than blogging about it etc.
While the final fix rests with the governments, we have to do our bit. Just, we're going to have to do it first.
At the moment "Green" is big business; but it is not so much actual green, as "brand Green". With enough consumers going after more eco-efficient lifestyles it increases the real green market and therefore pressure at a national level.
If everyone in the country went and installed solar panels tomorrow....
> The last year or so has seen more scientific papers and presentations that raise the genuine prospect of catastrophe (if we stay on our current emissions path) that I can recall seeing in any other year.
Missed a great opportunity for a hockey-stick graph! :)
The response in the comments here is perplexing to me.
The article is presenting well-cited scientific studies, with summaries and disclaimers where statistical issues have been correctly raised. Together, the article's point is that the "climategate" emails were a distraction that the media followed instead of all of the numerous studies coming out in the same year on the subject.
With that in mind, yes, it may be political advocacy, but no one here has raised any real reason why the research behind them shouldn't be taken seriously. If someone posted a list of articles coming out at the same time that rebutted their findings, I might think differently, but as it is I can't help thinking from observing the response here that the article's point may be truer than even its writers imagined. There's real science here! Discussion about the discussion is a distraction from it. If you think we shouldn't be discussing climate change, show me why you think the research is bogus instead of just telling me "political issues don't belong on HN". It's political because there's a lot of money at stake, not because the science is controversial; and please, if you think I'm wrong about that, show me why. I really, really, really want to be. Other scientific articles are fine on HN, so why not this?
39 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 75.6 ms ] threadFrom their website
Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.
addendum: for those confused, this is political advocacy and its probably not a good idea to post this stuff here unless you want HN to become reddit. Oh, how can it be advocacy if everything is true? Sometimes its not what you say, but what you leave out.
All the climategate research, at least what I could tell, pointed to global warming. Just not as much as the authors wanted though.
Selecting high quality scientific articles to bolster my political argument doesn't stop my aim being political - it may just mean that I have a convincing argument!
It is fair to be wary, however, of the process of selection in situations like this - these were 10 articles selected from many. Why were they chosen? Was the process of choosing neutral (such as in an independent literature survey) or political in nature?
This is where the nature of the site may give reason to look more closely, especially where they top and tail the actual science with partisan name calling, such as the reference to people concerned with the transparency and reliability of the climate science processes (ie 'Climategate') as the "anti-science crowd".
First of all, any political link that uses sensationalism should probably be avoided.
Second, rehashing of an old issue everyone knows about already (like global warming, or the federal deficit) isn't particularly useful.
Science: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting
Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred
Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”
Many of us in acadaemia are aware of a perceived phenomenon whereby "fashionable" (for want of a better word) topics get published and/or attract research. From a cynical (yet often accurate) perspective, researchers have become adept at framing their research proposals in the context of the topic du jour. I'm not saying the research is bad, just that funding is easier if you mention buzzwords.
My point is that acadaemia goes through cycles of particular interest in certain topics. The funding gets allocated to it and the journals are more likely to publish research relevant to the "fashionable" topic than other research. Now, I'm not saying the research is flawed; just that if you fund research into environmental change, you're probably going to find a lot of environmental change. If tomorrow you decide to massively fund research into extraterrestrial life, you will see a surge of papers in high-impact journals about that very subject. The environmental change hasn't gone away, it's just that fewer people are trying to publish data about it.
Perhaps for that reason we shouldn't be impressed by the sheer volume of research or the perceived quality of the publishing journals. We shouldn't panic because the number of papers on the subject has increased by several orders of magnitude in recent years. We should get a clear picture of what is going on, ignoring the funding bias, and once we have analysed the data from a balanced perspective and we see that it spells certain doom for all of us, then we can panic. ;)
The aim of the post is quite openly to show this as a clear and present danger and create a climate [sic] of fear, despite claims to the contrary.
I may have been a little glib with the original response; but I do not think that this is a well concluded blog post. Instead I think it is very political and probably unhelpful.
There clearly is an issue with the media focusing on Climategate, I don't think this is a successful way to raise that. And I maintain the tone of the piece is breathy and hysterical.
Not good.
Does catastrophe mean something else to you, or are you suggesting it'll all work out before we get to a catastrophe?
(The next questions, as I'm sure you'll be able to guess, are what you think will happen to save us from ourselves, and when we can expect it).
Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.
When I say "there is nothing wrong with the science" please do not misinterpret that as "I think all of climate science is accurate". We are still at the stage of developing understanding - specifically on how to stop climate change and how much it will affect the planet and in what ways. Even worse, don't misinterpret "there is nothing wrong with the science" as "I agree with the conclusion he draws from the combined science papers". It's not a very well put together conclusion, but that doesn't matter for his purposes.
In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves. I will stop off at my allotment tonight to pick up food for the evening, and will add another solar panel to my roof in spring (funds permitting). What will happen to save us from ourselves? Us of course. Many of the scare monger bloggers are hypocrites; the action here has to start at home. They are just in it for the politics, hence calling BS on them :)
What are YOU doing to address the problem? That is the question we should ask.
> Talking about this as a catastrophe is probably inaccurate (it will certainly get fixed, and if it doesn't, who cares what we call it) and doesn't help actually fix the problem.
We disagree about mankind's ability to sort things out, apparently. The question of labels depends on that opinion - If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.
> In the interim we should be politely pressuring our governments to invest in action
How is your martian cave? ;)
> ...and resources AND we should be taking steps ourselves.
I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever. I don't believe democracy is effective (better than the alternatives we've come up with, but it's still two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch). The only option open to us is spreading awareness, IMHO - government action is the only thing that can make a difference, and governments will only act when they have to. Our current polite pressuring are not nearly enough, apparently.
Yes they are in this context. Climate change is highly unlikely to directly affect you or me. On a general scale (i.e. how many people it could affect at some point, yes, the potential problem is much larger)
If, as I believe, it is a catastrophe that isn't being given enough credit, then labelling it a catastrophe will help.
Not in the slightest, and it hasn't. This is a basic misunderstanding of social psychology (or, actually, a careful manipulation of it, depending on your point of view, to score political points). You will get people involved and "on the issue". But they will be scared, under-informed and simply polarize for or against. Which has lead to the current inaction posturing and political point winning.
This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped?
Answer: It hasn't.
I don't believe people have any impact whatsoever
Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;)
But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.
The only option open to us is spreading awareness,
On this I agree. However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace. Mostly because it has exactly the opposite affect the the stated aims - you are on the bandwagon of politics for whom this could rumble on nicely for the next thirty years, useful for all manner of things.
The correct way to do this is by educating people, by starting businesses to encourage local consumption (veg box services, for example), showing them how to save money and energy (there is a scheme here to have free solar panels, but no one ever new about it), how to pressure local govt. for change (recently we got through some leading local legislation to lay the ground work to encourage all new builds to have solar heating).
We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.
So, hence, rubbish blogs like this are in it for politics and scaremongering and are damaging.
I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. I believe most of the food I eat is also grown in it, with prices set according to ease of production.
> This sort of language has been used for years now; how has it helped? Answer: It hasn't.
The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?
> Of course we can make a difference. Even if we can't that is no excuse to avoid doing these things ;) But the point is inaction makes any view pretty pointless - there is no legitimate way someone can pressure the govt. over climate change and not make serious, simple personal changes (not sacrifices!) to lower their own impact.
I'm not saying I don't, or that people shouldn't bother, I'm saying I don't expect it to make a difference. Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.
> However I cannot abide the approach you support of fostering fear and confusion in the mass populace
Don't get me wrong, I'm not into the shrieking either, and I agree that it is counter-productive. I do, however, think that the basic message being shrieked is accurate, and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all, let alone if we wait for the idea to bubble through the public and into government. Softly, softly only catchey monkey if the monkey's not already fleeing with a good head start ;)
> We are making these things happen - it won't take that many more to reach critical mass as a full on social movement.
I can't see that at all. Again, look to recycling - I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you could choose a house at random, check their rubbish and find that half of what they throw away could be recycled... yet ask anyone to rate the importance of recycling, and they'll be for it.
There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime.
>The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously?
It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two!
> Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc.
Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill.
You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;)
> and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all
This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years.
Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas.
We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.
This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"?
The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system.
And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.
Encouraging people to run round like headless chickens is counter-productive to the stated aims.
To extend your theatre analogy. Shouting "fire" in a theatre during the first half when it looks relatively likely a fire will start in the second half is definitely counter-productive. :)
My point is; this is entirely the wrong, unethical, political and hysterical way to present important science and raise the issues. Do it right, or not at all IMO.
If it were true that using the word "catastrophe" amounts to "encouraging people to run round like headless chickens" then of course I'd agree with you. I don't see any reason to think it is.
What, in your opinion, is the right, ethical, apolitical, and non-hysterical way to raise this issue? Would it have the consequence that politicians everywhere would completely ignore it? (Since, after all, the action we'd need to take to deal with the issue of climate change properly would be (1) expensive, (2) unpopular with many politically influential interest groups, and (3) large-scale enough to require a lot of government involvement. All of which, of course, is why such a lot of money and effort has gone into spreading confusion about the science and why even with all the talk of catastrophe not very much has been done.)
If you really want to know, I think that this article and all the other ones about the TSA, politics, and similar topics that are not strictly about startups or hacking should not be here.
You have a zillion places on the internet to discuss that stuff - reddit comes to mind - do you really have to pollute this one too?
Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."
The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.
I look away from the glow of this noisy MacBook, and ponder how foolish I am to be typing this on a computer that in only a few distant years from now will no longer work. I know that global ocean temperatures have been rising steadily for the past 100 hundred years -- this is based on maps of world ocean temperatures displayed to the public in the lobby of an Ocean Sciences building that I was able to view years ago.
Yes, Number 1 http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-p... is stunning. Don't stay stunned for too much longer.
Climate is one of those things that governments will be able to wash there hands of if everything turns bad, because no one can be 100% sure of causes and the whole climate gate thing the article was referring to.
I don't really expect any drastic action as unless every country acts those who don't will have a big trading advantage, at least in the short term.
This starts at home; and always will do if we want to make a difference.
Reduce your energy usage, buy local produce, install solar (and other sustainable) power. All of these changes can be done for very little additional cost. And if you really care it is the approach to take.
With enough of us doing these things it increases pressure and awareness a lot more than blogging about it etc.
While the final fix rests with the governments, we have to do our bit. Just, we're going to have to do it first.
At the moment "Green" is big business; but it is not so much actual green, as "brand Green". With enough consumers going after more eco-efficient lifestyles it increases the real green market and therefore pressure at a national level.
If everyone in the country went and installed solar panels tomorrow....
Missed a great opportunity for a hockey-stick graph! :)
The article is presenting well-cited scientific studies, with summaries and disclaimers where statistical issues have been correctly raised. Together, the article's point is that the "climategate" emails were a distraction that the media followed instead of all of the numerous studies coming out in the same year on the subject.
With that in mind, yes, it may be political advocacy, but no one here has raised any real reason why the research behind them shouldn't be taken seriously. If someone posted a list of articles coming out at the same time that rebutted their findings, I might think differently, but as it is I can't help thinking from observing the response here that the article's point may be truer than even its writers imagined. There's real science here! Discussion about the discussion is a distraction from it. If you think we shouldn't be discussing climate change, show me why you think the research is bogus instead of just telling me "political issues don't belong on HN". It's political because there's a lot of money at stake, not because the science is controversial; and please, if you think I'm wrong about that, show me why. I really, really, really want to be. Other scientific articles are fine on HN, so why not this?