Hacker News Reader

(B) is an interesting take. Who is to say "the other" guy is not already polluting to their max. If one country lowers its emissions,it is what aboutism to then suggest it must be a zero sum game and that other countries would increase their pollution. (It doesn't really matter what China does, the world needs to lower emissions and one country not doing so is not reason to then do nothing. That same line of reasoning caused the US to lose the solar panel industry to china)

(A) arguments around this are pretty over. I think that is why so little time is spent on it now. The Anti-science & big oil crowd win so long as nothing happens. Reading a list like A, B, C certainly sounds like someone talking themselves out of getting shape (A) I can't get in shape,(B) even if I can, someone else will be in better shape, (C) by the time I need to worry about being in shape, there will be a technology that makes it easy for me anyways.

Obviously someone has learned a lot about communication in the Corona crisis, because in this climate thingy the communication continues exactly the same way:

* Presenting models, which allegedly can determine the coming weeks/months/year exactly in advance (I remember "Either you are vaccinated or dead until Christmas") and must never be questioned, because they are consensus in THE science (tm).

* One must fight misinformation and fake news (that is, everything that contradicts these models in terms of facts).

* THE science (tm) is only supplied by a handful of actors in the media.

Actually, every self-thinking person would have to be aware of this Wuhan virus origin theory disaster, which was first defamed as a conspiracy theory and has since been confirmed by the US intelligence services.

Any lessons learned?

And just as little as all unvaccinated people died before Christmas, just as little as the prophecies in the 80s that the children of today would no longer see trees and forests, just as little as all seals and polar bears are slaughtered and extinct, just as little arctic would be ice free 2022 - and the list could go on and on - just as little should one trust models of THE science (tm) that these accurately represent reality and should therefore be considered religious truth.

The basis of any science is critical discourse. Who defames the participants of this critical discourse from the beginning as idiots or being dumb having because of a different opinion, should rather consider whether (s)he speaks here of science or religious fanaticism.

P.S.: 2007 the "Polar View" project adjusted the original model predicting Arctic to be ice free 30 to 40 years to 15-20 years. So today. Oh no - it's still not ice free. But now WWF predicts that the Arctic is not going to be ice free in 30 years but already in 15 years. 16 years later - still predicting the same stuff over and over.

“ Sad to see it's just circle jerking of fake intellectuals going "YA BRO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS DUMB, UNEDUCATED" or "Being unable to do comprehensive reading and understanding basic physical processes is not a good starting points in 2023." - atoav , or "I've basically given up on anything drastic happening until the dipshit conservatives in the US stop their moronic crusade on this topic. I give my money monthly to a carbon sequestration company and mostly use my bike and mass transit, but offsets for flights." - Sporkland, truly the greatest sanitation engineers of our time.”

You do understand that this paragraph paints you as exactly the same type of person you’re mocking, yes?

Good job tackling any of my points. You win 5 morale highground updoots. You're on a tech site, which is aimed to support intellectual discussion, but I don't see you doing any of that. Must be difficult for you.

For all you know, I agree with your points. It’s the pointless pot-and-kettle that I’m noting. It wins you nothing.