[mattmaroon]

We're a Republic rather than a direct democracy. You really don't vote on climate change at all (unless you're a Senator and I just don't know it).

Your job isn't really to study climate change and come to a conclusion. It's to elect someone who you think will do a good job of that.

It would be impossible to be informed enough about every issue you'd need to vote on while not working full-time on that sort of thing. Legislators have entire staffs for that purpose.

I realize I'm not thinking like the average American in that respect. They think something along the lines of "I think gay marriage is wrong, so therefore I'll vote for someone else who thinks gay marriage is wrong. He agrees with me so his decision making process must be good." To choose candidates by that system you'd have to be an expert on a large number of topics that 99.9999% of voters are not.

Instead my goal is to figure out which politician is most intelligent, hardest working, and has the correct motivation, and assume that they and their staffs will come to better conclusions than me since that's their job and not mine. I don't assume that someone who agrees with my relatively uninformed notions on things like climate change or the economy is correct just for that reason.

So I guess my point is, there is no relevant judgment we can make on the global warming topic. Consumer behavior is a drop in the bucket (if the CO2 problem really exists) and its going to take radical public policy changes that we do not get a direct vote on to fix.

[bokonist]

Well, I'm not a Senator. But one of my close friends works in the Senate, on climate change, and is responsible for briefing his Senator about the issue. And you know what? My friend doesn't really know that much about climate change. I would trust him less than the top commenter on a Hacker News articles. Hackers live in a world where they continuously have to make tough technical decisions that result in success or failure, that provides discipline at truth seeking. Staffers do not live in such a world. And while most hackers do not usually study climate change full time, on every comment thread on issue there are usually a select few who really know what they are talking about and get voted to the top.

I have two reasons for caring about climate change:

1) I find it intellectually fascinating. To me it unfolds like a mystery story, except one in which we're all involved. Thus I want to find the truth simply because I innately enjoy truth seeking.

2) Elite opinion matters for policy making. It might not matter directly. But maybe it's a NY Times reporter who reads a comment on Hacker News, that causes him to write an article differently, that is read by a Senate staffer. Or maybe it's a Hacker News reader who sees the article and decides to alter his career path and become a top scientist. Or maybe its a reader who forwards an article to his friend who is a policy maker.

Hacker News is a site of elite, intellectually curious people. Talking about important, controversial issues in any technical subject should be fair game. What's important is that whatever topic we discuss on this site, we discuss well (thoughtfully, politely, and backed with evidence).