Ask HN: Climate Science vs. Elon Musk

Climate change is real. Climate change deniers are wrong.

Yes, there is dissonance. Because people spread misinformation, or lies, however you want to label it. The fact is that climate change is quite real and quite a problem. The dissonance stems from the lies, not the facts.

Just search for the facts. First result I got was from NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

Let’s move beyond simplistic left-right labels and aim for critical reasoning where possible.

It wasn't always as partisan in the United States as it is now. It's likely there are multiple reasons for this, but I think one that's underappreciated is that the actions available to us today for slowing or stopping climate change are basically limited to reducing consumption in general and energy consumption in particular -- and that these happen to align with preexisting policy preferences of some on the "left". Additionally, industries focused on carbon extraction have long been aligned in the US with the Republican party and these industries would feel the greatest sting from efforts to reduce consumption.

Over the past two decades, the dialog has shifted a bit along lines like "the Earth isn't getting warmer, and if it is then it's not humans that are responsible and if they are then we can't do anything about it anyway" which feels to me like the "truth" being projected is whatever doesn't require any action. Human nature being what it is, it's debatable whether any effort aimed at changing people's behavior could ever be successful, and trying to make them feel bad about it may even be counterproductive.

On the whole (and echoing another comment), you're not likely to get reliable information about climate change from any generalist source of information. Every time there's a slightly unusual weather event, there are a brigade of voices trying to tie it to climate change. Actual researchers understand that you simply can't ascribe individual events in that fashion; the best you can do is to look at trends and try honestly to look at all possible factors for them. Forest fires are in the US seem to be getting worse, and it's probable that some amount of that is a direct or indirect result of climate change. But there have also been a lot of changes in forestry management over the last century, and an increase in the number of people living in affected areas -- and both of these clearly have some role in our perception too.

At least in some sectors climate change is considered a serious issue https://www.defense.gov/spotlights/tackling-the-climate-cris....

If you want to look at the data, look at the data... there's a lot of reports from the IPCC that analyze it all extensively and summarize it. And if you have time, you can look at all the studies and reviews individually. But it's not really about the data. The political disagreements are (nowadays) about what to do about it, if anything. In the past, there was more outright denial, but that's less common these days. The science itself is pretty clear (but also a lot of reading).

My best (semi-informed) summary: Is it happening? Yes. Is it hyperbolic? That's a matter of opinion. Some regions are affected more than others. Increased occurrences and severities of storms and wildfires are partially (but not solely) caused by climate change, but if you're out of those affected areas, they're easier to ignore. Is it going to drive us to extinction by next year? No. Is it affecting people and environments gradually? Yes. Is it measurable? Yes. Some places get hotter, some places get colder, some places get drier or wetter or more or less suitable for crops and animals and humans, etc. You can look up studies for your specific region of the world if you want.

But it's not really the science of "is it happening" that's under dispute (anymore), but questions of "how much", "how quick", "where", and most importantly, "what to do about it". It is the last question especially that's hard to answer.

Different pundits, billionaires, politicians, etc. all have their own take on it. The scientists don't have much power or voice, so you're left with secondhand and thirdhand accounts and screaming matches and propaganda and misinformation. Climate policies affect a lot of industries, from energy (obviously) to automotive to data centers to oil & gas to defense to finance to agriculture, and also have huge global geopolitical and economical ramifications.

It ultimately boils down to trying to reduce the output of certain sectors (fossil fuels and heavy industries and ranching and meat) in favor of others (renewables, service economies, certain types of agriculture, etc.). Generally it's not the same demographics (in terms of values or regions or politicians or countries) who are affected by those shifts, so there is a huge class & demographic component to it too, i.e. coastal tech workers with company-subsidized solar panels and EVs have more to gain and less to lose than middle America ranchers who depend on traditional industries and infrastructure for their livelihoods and communities.

Add to that already-complex divide things like carbon markets (one company pollutes more, but can buy "pollution credits" from some other tree-planting or solar farm project to offset that), financial incentives (it's a huge market right now), religion, culture, etc. and you get this huge issue with no easy solutions. It's a global problem that gradually affects everyone, but in the short term, it affects some people & communities much more than others, and there are various profit and power motives embedded within the gradual shifts too that further muddy the waters.

Don't worry though... with the rightward shifts we're seeing across the U.S. and the world, there's probably not going to be much more discussion of this in the next few decades. I think by this point it's a lost cause anyway. But on the other hand, renewables still chug along, with China's massively subsidized solar industry causing many countries around the world to add more and more renewable energy (at least until U.S. tariffs kick back in). Nuclear is kinda seeing a resurgence too. It's funny / sad how, despite decades of advocacy and argument, in the end the only thing that really made a dent was the very thing that caused it... heavy industries. If not for China making a ton of solar panels while we argued ourselves to death, and AI helping to drive nuclear reinvestment, it'd be even worse t...

Climate change wasn't always such a political topic. Both sides would agree on climate changing over a period of time. Getting hotter, getting cooler. We knew we were in a time of it getting hotter. It's when scientists started pointing out that we were getting hotter faster than what is reflected in the historical record and the studies were showing that it was caused by man. This wasn't news that was taken well by the right. First, you have the religious people, which make up a huge portion of conservatives. They state that only a higher being can affect climate, man can't. Then you had the capitalists, as what was being said is that industry is causing a majority of the CO2 emissions, and we should do something about that with regulations. If there's one thing the right will not tolerate it's policing business. You see the same thing with illegal immigration. The right want to combat it, but if you say we should penalize and fine/jail the owners of businesses that use all the illegal immigrants for cheap labor, they'll say no. Instead we should build walls and have people patrolling the border, can't mess with business. So, we went from both sides knowing it was an issue to one side trying to do stuff about it, and the other side telling people it's a lie and spreading misinformation.