Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by esarbe 1674 days ago
What are "climate change circles" supposed to be?

You mean the people not willfully blind of the facts? Sure, must be propaganda.

2 comments

The non-purely-materialistic dimension of reality (the part that prevents humanity from actually doing anything substantial about climate change) unfolds according to people's perceptions of reality, not reality itself (which we do not see, even though it seems to be the exact opposite of that). It may be enjoyable to look down one's nose at the unintelligent, but realize that intelligence is a spectrum and the sense one has that they are at the apex of that spectrum is illusory.

Science is a very useful tool, but it is not the only tool we need to deal with this problem, and it is certainly not the best tool for dealing with the most important unsolved (and seemingly not even realized) aspect of it: the human mind.

I think we need to start thinking very differently about this problem - one approach (applied to a different domain) is described in this[1] post, I think it would provide more value than more and more scientific statistics, which seem to be accomplishing very little.

[1] Sociotechnical Lenses into Software Systems

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29282715

I mean people trying to show or prove the effects of climate change. Whether you believe in it or not, there supposedly are specialists working in that area. At least that is usually the argument, that there are experts who worked it all out whom we should listen to. So I think those can be called "climate change circles".
Since at this point 99.9% [0] of all studies come to the conclusion that climate change is real and man made, can we just use the phrase 'reputable scientist' instead of 'climate change circles'?

[0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...