Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#51

Post by eric_h »

wtvanhest wrote: post #45
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs. Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most…

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.

This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could.

It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talking to anyone who didn't express even a touch of an open mind about it.

I agree that the magnitude of the effect has not been demonstrably measured by anyone yet, but I don't see that as any reason to not take action to at least try to reduce whatever damage we might have done, are currently doing, and might do in the future.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#52

Post by woodandsteel »

Mendenhall wrote: post #48
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

I would say I 100 percent know people change the climate. How much I do not know. I have yet to see any scientific proof as to what percentage of change will be man made, or what degree the earth will change without human intervention. I dont think of myself as a denier but I do think of myself as someone who likes facts. In the research I have done when I have dug deeper it turns up a lot of assumptions\models. I th…

> I just want more facts so the correct action can be taken.

So you do think your mind could be persuaded by more scientific evidence, but you don't state specifically what sort of evidence it would take to do it.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#53

Post by ylem »

jessriedel wrote: post #14

I know nothing about this topic, but I can caution to point out that Scientific Reports is the lowest rung of the Nature journal heirarchy. When I published there, I was very unimpressed with the quality of the refereeing and editing. Certainly doesn't mean the work is wrong, but laymen shouldn't interpret this as having the same sort of seal of approval as a normal Nature article. In my field (physics), Scientific R…

One other thought comes to mind--the submission pattern of different subfields of science vary tremendously. There are also questions of expediency--for example, perhaps a student was graduating and they decided that the work would be published quickly in scientific reports, or perhaps another group was rumored to be publishing soon. It's impossible to say. If it were my field, I would just read the paper myself to see if it were technically sound instead of stressing too much about the fact that it's a scientific report. If it wasn't my field, I would check to see how cited it was in the future...

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#54

Post by wtvanhest »

eric_h wrote: post #51
wtvanhest wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs. Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most…

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds. This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could. It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talk…

There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. That is why people are questioning the 'science' of global warming. If we as a species are wrong about global warming in either direction, that is a big problem.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#55

Post by goodcanadian »

sathackr wrote: post #44
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

For a long time I was in the "we don't have enough information to make a conclusion" camp, and dismissed anyone "jumping" to conclusions as alarmist. This xkcd changed my mind: https://xkcd.com/1732/

The graph that convinced me (many years ago) was this one:

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mau...

It is simple physics as to how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas. Seeing the clear trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes warming sort of obvious (at least to me). All of the complex second order effects (how much warming, how climate and weather patterns will react, and so on) are much more complicated and therefore less clear. Nevertheless, we are having a strong clear effect on the atmosphere which is going to warm the planet. The rest is details (though those details are getting a lot scarier, recently).

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#56

Post by eric_h »

sathackr wrote: post #44
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

For a long time I was in the "we don't have enough information to make a conclusion" camp, and dismissed anyone "jumping" to conclusions as alarmist. This xkcd changed my mind: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Much as I like Randall Munroe and xkcd, I don't see any sources cited in that comic.

I don't know that we know, precisely, how fucked we are yet, but I do think it's clear that humans are having an effect, and we know very convincing reasons for why we're having an effect, so we should work to reduce that effect regardless of whether we're fucked in 100 years if we continue this way, or if it will take 1000.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#57

Post by woodandsteel »

wtvanhest wrote: post #45
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs. Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most…

>I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective.

So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is subjective or objective?

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#58

Post by woodandsteel »

wtvanhest wrote: post #45
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs. Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most…

>Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.

There are many people who openly state that the climate is not changing. It is objectively correct to use the term "denial" to describe their position.

However, you say we should not use this term, and don't propose any alternative labels, so in effect you are saying we should not talk about them at all. I think that is a very bad idea.

As far as changing people's minds, I was asking what would do that.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#59

Post by woodandsteel »

Mendenhall wrote: post #48
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

I would say I 100 percent know people change the climate. How much I do not know. I have yet to see any scientific proof as to what percentage of change will be man made, or what degree the earth will change without human intervention. I dont think of myself as a denier but I do think of myself as someone who likes facts. In the research I have done when I have dug deeper it turns up a lot of assumptions\models. I th…

>I would say I 100 percent know people change the climate.

No, there are lots of people who deny the climate is changing and that it is due at least in part to humans. They argue for instance, that the temperature data is inaccurate, or that any temperature rise we have seen recently is just random, or that it is systematic but due to increased solar radiation. I am rather surprised you aren't aware of these views.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#60

Post by specialist »

maxerickson wrote: post #39
specialist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally (land use code), but not in practice. Oh, maybe your mean "grasslands" and I'm talking about lawns. The conservationist I worked for refer to lawns as urban deserts.

The conservationist I worked for refer to lawns as urban deserts. Because of the water retention characteristics? Or for more reasons than that?

Most people don't aerate or thatch their yards. Mature lawns are like dense mats.

Water doesn't soak thru.

Other species can't compete.

Post reply on HN