Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> This type of language really bothers me.

Why? It seems like the statement agrees with yours: "The sudden thawing of Arctic permafrost is of great concern to scientists, who say that the methane and carbon dioxide gas that the process releases is accelerating global warming."




By stating that "someone else says X" it doesn't imply that X is a fact only that maybe it is. The statement is not wrong, it just bothers me that Nature of all mediums would do that on this particular topic.

It's really mindblowing that feedbacks aren't more present in conversations about climate change considering these are probably the most dangerous and IMO terrifying aspects.

Even the IPCC has been evading the subject:

> Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for his work on depletion of the ozone layer, said: “The IPCC report demonstrates that it is still possible to keep the climate relatively safe, provided we muster an unprecedented level of cooperation, extraordinary speed and heroic scale of action. But even with its description of the increasing impacts that lie ahead, the IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time to tame our energy system, and the other sources of climate pollution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-...


GP doesn't want the statement to read: "scientists believe X", he wants it to read: "X is a fact that is not up for debate" reply


Yes, that's what I would expect from Nature. Maybe not from the NY Times.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: