Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by haversine02 3569 days ago
It's a shame that the whole matter of global warming has been politicized and muddied so much by special interests that average person simply doesn't care anymore. That's why it's especially weird to see something like this published in Daily Mail. The positive feedback loop is definitely happening though, but the magnitude and extents of it could still vary.

To be honest, I don't believe we can stop this, not with the current population size and the current economic model.

3 comments

> It's a shame that the whole matter of global warming has been politicized and muddied so much by special interests that average person simply doesn't care anymore. That's why it's especially weird to see something like this published in Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail profits from sensationalism, it's not really like Fox News in the sense that it only pushes one ideological position. So you'll get it reporting sensationalist articles for and against action on climate change (although historically it has been mostly anti, because it makes a better story for the purposes of invoking outrage).

This article is sensationalist by overplaying what is happening - the 200 figure actually refers to the concentration of methane in the leaks relative to the atmosphere (it doesn't refer to the actual scale of the leaks in any sense).

As an aside, I'm not sure these sensationalist stories about extreme climate change actually help, they're still basically pandering to readers by offering a way to be outraged without having to do anything. The narrative shifts directly from 'this is not a problem, we don't need to do anything' to 'this is the apocalypse, someone should have done something about it, but now it's too late for me to make any difference'. Then perhaps a few years later, when the apocalypse hasn't happened, it can go back to 'we're still okay, the problem was overblown, we don't need to do anything'. And the boring work of actually working out a solution falls by the wayside.

Not to mention the often overlooked effect of the decreasing planetary albedo, thanks to melting ice caps.
The best thing for Earth and possibly the thing for homo sapiens is a nuclear winter. Hillary will just continue the drone war and statist business as usual. Trump on the other hand, total wild-card, and possibly unwitting instigator of nuclear war. The long term ecological choice is Trump.
You need to read Scott Adams' blog, it really is an eye-opener on Trump. (Scott Adams being the creator of the Dilbert cartoon). Start here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149983115751/why-trump-doesnt-s...
Scott Adams speaking through Ratbert is a sage, Scott Adams speaking with his own voice, not so much.
Is it a little presumptuous for you to decide, individually and on humanity's behalf, that widespread death and destruction is the best thing for everyone?
I don't have enough money for my opinions to be decisions. I only have one measly vote.
I think you dropped this ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ'/s'