undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnonbel9y ago0 comments

>"there aren't really two sides to climate change when 99% of scientists and experts agree"

So what exactly is this one side that 99% of experts agree upon?

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

vkou9y ago· 5 in thread

That it's happening, that we're causing it, and that if we don't change something, we are fucked.

The only disagreements are on extent to which we will be fucked - will we see hundreds of millions of climate refugees, or billions.

aaron6959y ago

> and that if we don't change something, we are fucked.

This simply isn't true, it's outlandish even, and is part of why moderation is tricky. Why do you believe this?

We are not 'fucked' even at the worst estimates.

In 1990 almost 2 billion people were on less than $2.00 per day.

Were we 'fucked' in 1990?

Are we currently 'fucked' with 700 million people on less than $2.00 per day.

quadrangle9y ago

When someone writes "we're fucked", the only completely wrong response is to assume "fucked" has a precise and technical definition. As a bit of language, it merely means "things will be shitty". What does "shitty" mean? C'mon… yeah, this is all relative.

nonbelOP9y ago

Can you be more specific? For example, I really doubt anyone thinks climate change is not always "happening" or that human activity has exactly zero influence on it.

lordCarbonFiber9y ago

A certain commander in chief has in public espoused that:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[0].

There are plenty of misinformed people that will gladly tell you there is no such thing and if there was human activity has no effect. Pretending that there aren't and even if the issue is complex there isn't a set of clearly wrong opinions is disingenuous to the extreme.

[0] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838...

1 more reply

moduspol9y ago

Well, I mean, the alternative is that it's a complex issue often touted as black-and-white to allow for taking a moral high ground against rational people that reasonably disagree on some of the conclusions and proposed methods for dealing with the issue.

And if that's true, then it's possible there's no grand conspiracy and at the end of the day, either the evidence isn't strong enough or the case isn't being made well enough to get everyone on board. If the debate is being lost before they even start telling people how dramatically their lifestyles will have to change to have a meaningful impact on the issue, what possible hope could they have when those realities are laid out?

But that's probably not true, so don't worry about it. Now are you with us or a denier?

nemild9y ago

You might like Merchants of Doubt which goes deep into false equivalency in media coverage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse