Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cletus 1667 days ago
> It’s like if first I asked you, what will happen if I hit this window with a hammer? It will break. Now what if I ask you where every piece will go?

I don't like this analogy. A better example might be that if we set fire to all the forests, it's going to get hotter. It's true in the short term but the long term effects can be debated. And unfortunately there's a history of predictions that haven't come true to deal with.

There are a bunch of unanswered questions around rapid warming. Like the doom and gloom scenarios of a tipping point or runaway global warming. The obvious question I have is: if this is a real possibility, why hasn't it happened in the last several billion years? The Earth has been warmer than it is now.

Another is that rapid warming over short periods isn't that unprecedented [1]:

> One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006)

To be clear, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a climate change fatalist. By this I mean that whatever is going to happen is going to happen and there's really nothing you can do about it now other than finding cheaper alternatives to bad behaviours (eg solar becoming cheaper than fossil fuels).

If the pandemic has taught us nothing else, it's that many people are staggeringly selfish and are quite willing to let other people die rather than they being mildly inconvenienced. There's no way people are going to make their lives more expensive or more inconvenient for climate change.

[1]: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-cli...

1 comments

Thanks for adding the further context here. I'd like to add context to your point:

> If the pandemic has taught us nothing else, it's that many people are staggeringly selfish and are quite willing to let other people die rather than they being mildly inconvenienced.

I don't believe that "anti-maskers", who you are probably referring to, are significantly more selfish than "maskers." If you understand that most of them truly believe masks are not helpful, and even some believe they are harmful, then to them it's more than just "I'd rather kill people than be inconvenienced." They don't believe they are killing anyone.

I don’t believe them when they say that. Based on the way they keep ending at the same conclusions with different reasonings as facts change, I think they don’t like being told what to do, and keep backwards-rationalizing reasons (“I read somewhere that masks actually _hurt_ people!”) in order to have something to tell people.