Given that most of the article is made of highlights from 10 scientific articles published in such high profile reviews as Nature, Science, or Nature Geoscience, I do not think you can reduce it to "political advocacy" from a "hysterical website".

The argument that "HN is not Reddit" is one that should be taken seriously. Yes, there are some political links on HN unrelated to the tech industry or entrepreneurialism that have been interesting and fostered good discussion. The question is, how do we separate the good stuff from the tired propaganda?

First of all, any political link that uses sensationalism should probably be avoided.

Second, rehashing of an old issue everyone knows about already (like global warming, or the federal deficit) isn't particularly useful.

You're using a straight Ad Hominem, or as pg calls it a DH1.

As a disclaimer, I should first say that I haven't read any of these papers in detail and that I therefore can't comment on their validity. I also don't wish to take a pro- or anti-environmentalist stance. I'm strictly neutral. I'm just talking about the nature of research publications.

Many of us in acadaemia are aware of a perceived phenomenon whereby "fashionable" (for want of a better word) topics get published and/or attract research. From a cynical (yet often accurate) perspective, researchers have become adept at framing their research proposals in the context of the topic du jour. I'm not saying the research is bad, just that funding is easier if you mention buzzwords.

My point is that acadaemia goes through cycles of particular interest in certain topics. The funding gets allocated to it and the journals are more likely to publish research relevant to the "fashionable" topic than other research. Now, I'm not saying the research is flawed; just that if you fund research into environmental change, you're probably going to find a lot of environmental change. If tomorrow you decide to massively fund research into extraterrestrial life, you will see a surge of papers in high-impact journals about that very subject. The environmental change hasn't gone away, it's just that fewer people are trying to publish data about it.

Perhaps for that reason we shouldn't be impressed by the sheer volume of research or the perceived quality of the publishing journals. We shouldn't panic because the number of papers on the subject has increased by several orders of magnitude in recent years. We should get a clear picture of what is going on, ignoring the funding bias, and once we have analysed the data from a balanced perspective and we see that it spells certain doom for all of us, then we can panic. ;)

I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing.

Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."

> what the HN community thinks about this article.

If you really want to know, I think that this article and all the other ones about the TSA, politics, and similar topics that are not strictly about startups or hacking should not be here.

You have a zillion places on the internet to discuss that stuff - reddit comes to mind - do you really have to pollute this one too?

Some would welcome an existential threat to humanity as an opportunity to innovate our way out of this mess. Right now, we lack a common goal & survival tends to be a strong motivator. We can't go back to the woods, but maybe we can build a habitat that includes some woods & maybe some species that are required for human survival. Think about it as building a Minimum Viable Planet. Now that is a startup.

If I was being absolutely honest - the first thing I do when I see any maps about climate change is check what the predicated changes are for my location.

The I look and think "Who is screwed?" and how might that impact on our way of life here.

But if we're stunned and apathetic we don't need to do anything.

Ah... a pet topic of mine.

This starts at home; and always will do if we want to make a difference.

Reduce your energy usage, buy local produce, install solar (and other sustainable) power. All of these changes can be done for very little additional cost. And if you really care it is the approach to take.

With enough of us doing these things it increases pressure and awareness a lot more than blogging about it etc.

While the final fix rests with the governments, we have to do our bit. Just, we're going to have to do it first.

At the moment "Green" is big business; but it is not so much actual green, as "brand Green". With enough consumers going after more eco-efficient lifestyles it increases the real green market and therefore pressure at a national level.

If everyone in the country went and installed solar panels tomorrow....