[susan_hall]

I am surprised you were downvoted. The 4 points you make seem straightforward, and are accurate.

The timeline for economic damage (from global warming) is fairly long. Even in the worst-case scenario, the Earth as we know it is still recognizable for the next 50 years, and all of the seasons and climate patterns remain roughly the same. The major changes will tend to show 50 to a 100 years from now.

Also, I'd like to point out that the increasing acidity of the oceans is a much worse problem, in the long-term, than the warming of the atmosphere. Carbon washes out of the atmosphere, and ends up as acid in the oceans. At current trends, in less than 100 years the oceans will be more acidic than at any point since the Cambrian Revolution. It is not clear that life in the oceans can survive with those levels of acidity (other than organisms that live in volcanic vents and love acid).

[lisper]

> I am surprised you were downvoted.

I'm not. Many people seem to have lost sight of what downvotes are supposed to mean on HN. They are supposed to mean, "This comment is not constructive." Instead, people use it to mean, "I don't agree with this." So controversial opinions often get downvoted into oblivion rather quickly. It's damned annoying, especially when people don't follow up with any explanation of why they disagree.

> It is not clear that life in the oceans can survive with those levels of acidity

Actually, that's pretty clear. Some kind of life will survive, even if it's just bacteria and jellyfish. Life is incredibly robust. This is exactly the kind of hyperbole that undermines the arguments for policy changes.

This is not to say that acidification is not a serious problem. It is. But not because it will sterilize the ocean. It won't.

[greglindahl]

I downvoted because the comment wasn't a response to the article, nor did it really seem to be responding to other comments. I agree that many people make the same complaint you do, claiming that many downvoters are simply disagreeing with content. You might want to consider topicality, too.

[duncan_bayne]

> So controversial opinions often get downvoted into oblivion rather quickly. It's damned annoying, especially when people don't follow up with any explanation of why they disagree.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticing that. There are certain topics - e.g. progressive taxation, Steve Jobs, Apple and socialism - that are impossible to criticise on HN without triggering a flurry of downvotes.

[civilian]

I suspect that some of the life in the ocean _could_ adapt, if they were not also being over-fished (or having their prey over-fished). You need a large population for variations to crop up, and then some period of time for the beneficial variations to spread out. 50-100 years is _breakneck_ speed as far as evolution goes, but if you have an annual-breeding fish then they could get 50-100 generations to adapt. Whales & dolphins may have a bad time though.

[lisper]

This is exactly the kind of hyperbole I'm talking about. Whales and dolphins and fish are not the totality of life in the oceans. There's krill and algae and bacteria and a bazillion other things.

Now, losing whales and dolphins and fish would be catastrophic (IMO). But that is not the same as losing all life. It is not that "some of the life in the ocean could adapt." Life in the ocean (and on land) will adapt, no question about it. It just might not be the kind of life we humans want to see. That is the problem.