> 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').

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

nielsbot 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	nielsbot a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

danaris 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	esperent 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hackernews progresses one carmudgeon funeral at a time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle