> discussion of climate change illegal

Well discussing it was de facto banned on HN for many years (still wouldn't be surprised if this post disappears soon).

Any climate change post that was anything other than "everything is fine because of electric vehicles/solar/wind/etc", especially if it dare suggest that the situation was dire, would quickly get 'flagged' by the vocal minority (but still surprisingly large group of people) on HN who don't want to believe in climate change. Years ago, on different accounts, I would complain about HN's status-quo enforcing censorship logic, only to be boo'd away. This community is, at it's heart, one that has been a part of the process of encouraging climate change.

I stopped complaining when I realized that nobody is seriously interested in tackling climate change (where you have to keep fossil fuels in the ground), so we're going to experience the full consequences of it (and yes, it does pose an existential risk). The annoying part is that people will continue to deny anything is happening no matter how aggressively visible real the impacts are.

At this point there really is no reason to discuss climate change any more, most people really can't deal with the reality of what it represents (even people who think they are 'green').

Discussing climate change has never been banned; this sort of claim is easily disproved by even the most cursory of searches in the box below. Try it.

Here, I’ll say it right now: climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.

Now, there’s an expectation that commenters conduct themselves appropriately and contribute to the overall well being of this site. If a person misbehaves when discussing this or any topic, that’s when they get spanked.

> de facto banned

seems a little strong, but I understand why they say this

> climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.

plenty of comments on HN to this day will disagree, saying climate change is some anti-progress conspiracy or hasn't been studied enough or won't be that bad, etc etc.

It’s ok to disagree. Disagreement isn’t verboten here. In fact, I’ve been reading the book Unsettled by Stephen E. Koonin which calls into question the consensus on climate change and the author makes some great points.

If the consensus is this lopsided I think it’s time to accept it. There are plenty of contrarian arguments, especially from oil companies who have a vested interest obviously) and they haven’t turned the consensus around despite their best efforts.

Also, due to the risks associated with climate change, doing something now as a societal insurance policy is prudent. Not to mention that polluters are necessarily infringing on the property and human rights of everyone else.

If this was true years ago, it is not anymore. There are plenty of stories, and posts, about climate change.

And over the...I dunno, something like 9 years? I've been here, I have observed a distinct but gradual shift to the left in the overall tenor of conversation. Things do change, even here.

Hackernews progresses one carmudgeon funeral at a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

For me it's similar to having red tests in my build - it causes me a lot of anxiety to see all the breakage. Plus it shows down shipping. So now I just delete them, feel better already.

There's precedent:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...

> “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull [the Prime Minster of Australia]

Was he wrong? That sounds like it was about some sort of mandatory-mitm scheme or ban on e2e encryption. Like, yes, you can pretty easily make it impossible for the government to decrypt your bits, but the government can just as easily arrest you for it.

He was effectively saying this: https://xkcd.com/538/

No he was saying he doesn't care that creating a backdoor for encryption means anyone can use that backdoor and that you must both follow the law by being secure but also follow the law by being insecure. People arguing that that creating encryption that both did and didn't have a backdoor was impossible got that little gem in return.

Apropos that, I remember that James Lovelock said basically the same about Australia as this article says about New Orleans: living there is not sustainable, you should all leave.

> Rather than relocate, we can make discussion of climate change illegal or just tax the blue states to build a sea wall around the entire city

Like in The Netherlands?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

There's a museum in New Orleans that has a Katrina display and it turns out that they did indeed call in Dutch experts to advise them. The Dutch gave them sensible ideas like building low elevation parks that could flood without issue and hold lots of water, instead of concrete spillways and drainage that just moves water fast until it fails catastrophically when inundated. Louisiana being Louisiana, it was all ignored.

The museum convinced me that New Orleans is doomed in so many ways. Everything from the Atchafalaya ORCS to the paving over of wetlands to build the city to the destruction of the Plaquemines marsh lands to the southeast of the city all seem to be maximally unhelpful for preventing storm damage.

The reality is that New Orleans is simply not important enough.

Even the biggest ultra conservative GOP voting redneck will have to admit that America can't survive without NYC which is why it will get it's seawall.

This is very fascinating from a cultural viewpoint. Some cities in Europe are important just for the history and not economy like Venice, or lesser extent Rome. When the Russian attack started, people moaned about the old buildings and the culture in Kyiv. (Ofcourse the attack itself was inmoral).

What I get is New Orleans has an unique culture and history. Most people in the US dont think it is worth to preserve?

Most people in the US think everybody should have access to basic healthcare but we haven't been able to make that happen.

Something like saving New Orleans probably doesn't stand a chance.

I mean this is a sign of the flawed political process. But even in a working democracy if people arent interested, politican mostly wont care. So Americans dont think New Orleans is worth to preserve?

I've been reading more about New Orleans situation this morning and my thinking is changing. It would be nice if we could preserve it, but I didn't really understand how bad the situation is. I don't think it's possible and spending should be focused on relocating people from the area.

New Orleans is probably going to be a fairly small island 20 miles offshore that gets drowned by hurricanes every few years.

When you look at who the rest of Louisiana voted for, they don't even want to preserve New Orleans. They're literally terrified of it and were elected on the promise to subjugate it.

What they really want to preserve is stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/live/mHljI5JbnTM?si=dReL9sZKiqtNlvpr...

And we can make the sea pay for it!!