[whatisthiseven]

"yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions."

I don't understand. The people in the US Congress are hamstringing themselves and can barely pass their own legislation, yet somehow that inaction and political gridlock, which existed and will exist regardless of climate change, is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

You know who else also has a ton of money and a willingness to be dishonest? Every company that produces or relies directly on coal, oil, and gas. They ensure Congress is useless and unable to act by funding a party that ensures nothing happens.

I don't understand this take. Those of us that want to solve climate change want nuclear, we want solar, we want it all. We want to give Hydrogen to Aluminum plants to supplant CO2 they release, we want to electricy cars, we want to feed seaweed to cows to stop their farts.

You might be arguing against a loud majority that is repeating dumb stuff, but surely HN attracts people that can ignore the bad policies and arguments and elevate the best?

[rglover]

> is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my point. No. Read my initial comment. My goal isn't to say climate change isn't bad. You're doing exactly what I called out above.

[whatisthiseven]

"You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions."

I suppose I could see this as saying "if it really were catastrophic, why aren't we acting like it" as opposed to "it can't be catastrophic if we aren't acting like it".

A subtle difference, but to say it is a "deliberate mischaracterization" is just not true. I read the whole comment chain and I think my initial view was an easy one to arrive at. I would avoid conflating too many things at once.

[moistly]

Your goal appears to be to encourage delay and insouciance.

[rglover]

No. It's to stop psychologically abusing the population and scaring them and their children into thinking the world is going to end in ten years.

If you solve that problem, then we can actually focus on what matters: making sure there isn't a real catastrophe (implementing policies that don't destroy the economy, building alternative energy solutions, etc). If everyone is terrified and panicked, you're more likely to get the whims of a totalitarian authority accepted by the population (go figure).

Instead of having "climate anxiety," kids should instead be excited and curious about what they can learn to help reduce the effects (or mitigate them away entirely).

The goal of a lot of the people here seems to be hysteria.

[whatisthiseven]

"The goal of a lot of the people here seems to be hysteria. "

Hadn't you just accused others of mischaracterizing your views? Why are you doing the same to everyone arguing back?

I don't see anyone in this comment chain whose goal is to be hysterical or cause hysteria. We all simply view human caused climate change as obvious and want to solve it. I am quite curious as to how to solve climate change economically, quickly, without giving up too much way of life, liberties, or causing panic.

The public is not being hysterical. Rather the opposite, which is something you already admitted further up: people simply aren't acting at all.

[rglover]

> Hadn't you just accused others of mischaracterizing your views? Why are you doing the same to everyone arguing back?

You were the only person I accused. Because you did.

[modo_mario]

I'd hardly call it deliberate because his/her take is exactly what i got from it as well.