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

71–80 of 117 posts

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

#71

Post by woodandsteel »

bkirkby wrote: post #64
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…

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

>now, to be clear, i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit.

Do you have any alternative possible explanations for what is causing the temperature rise? And what do you think of the ones that have been proposed, like increased solar radiation?

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

#72

Post by Cretin2 »

bkirkby wrote: post #64
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…

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

" i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit."

What if you were shown the science behind the lagging you speak of? Also, what do you propose is the main culprit then?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interm...

Feel free to engage with the author. They comment frequently at the bottom.

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

#73

Post by Cretin2 »

padseeker wrote: post #42
radlad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little more complicated than that: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.h...

Actually its not - Frank Lutz, a GOP operative, claims to have come up with the team 'climate change'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1GCZWQF-M

It's obvious you never even considered reading the article:

Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.

Lutz proposed this as a PR method during the Bush administration.

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

#74

Post by woodandsteel »

robotiamsowhat wrote: post #69
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…

Perhaps a honest discussion would do? First things first - I would not call me a denier, but I would call me understander. An outcome from what I have read somewhere was that, if Sun increased its output by 1% (and kept it so for some years) it would cause equivalent warming to the one observed now. As far as I can say, Sun's activity was never constant. There may be other factors as well. On few occassions I showed…

So in terms of my question, are you saying that if you were presented with persuasive evidence that it is not the case that the global warming we observe is being caused by increasing solar radiation, would you then be persuaded it is instead being caused at least to a considerable degree by human activity?

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

#75

Post by woodandsteel »

Tycho wrote: post #63
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…

The problem with "climate science" is that so many things about it set off my internal BS detector. But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to the question - how come CO2 concentration was much higher in several past periods and it didn't turn the Earth into a desert?

>But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to the question - how come CO2 concentration was much higher in several past periods and it didn't turn the Earth into a desert?

So are you saying that if you got a persuasive answer to that question, you would then be persuaded that human activity is causing global warming, at least to a considerable degree?

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

#76

Post by wtvanhest »

woodandsteel wrote: post #57
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…

>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?

I am open to evidence that clearly shows that climate change is in part or completely caused by humans. Subjectivity would be one measure that I would apply.

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

#77

Post by bkirkby »

woodandsteel wrote: post #71
bkirkby wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

>now, to be clear, i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit. Do you have any alternative possible explanations for what is causing the temperature rise? And what do you think of the ones that have been proposed, like increased solar radiation?

i do not. as i pointed out, it's a classic complex mechanism that might not be able to be attributable to one single factor.

i guess i'm also not convinced that the warming of the past 150 - 200 years is out of the range of normal variation (esp. with the latest warming pause) when looking at geologic times. i know it's a difficult thing to prove since constructing geologic GLOBAL temperature is very difficult, but i just don't know.

it does seem like the increase of carbon in the atmosphere is abnormal, if not entirely unprecedented.

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

#78

Post by woodandsteel »

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…

Two hours after posting my original question, I am realizing that some skeptics and deniers might be persuaded by additional evidence, but others wouldn't. A next question then would be how many in the US are persuadable and how many not. I am pretty sure most are not, but it would be good to have some survey data.

I am also struck that most of the skeptics and deniers either didn't answer the question as to whether they they could be persuaded, or at least implied they could, but didn't say what specific sort of evidence it would take.

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

#79

Post by bkirkby »

Cretin2 wrote: post #72
bkirkby wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

" i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit." What if you were shown the science behind the lagging you speak of? Also, what do you propose is the main culprit then? https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interm... Feel free to engage with the author. They comment frequently at the bottom.

i don't propose a "main culprit" as i understand climate to be a classic complex system. i simply don't know what the main culprit is or even if there IS a main culprit.

i'm not yet convinced that the temperature increase that we've seen in the past 150 - 200 years is abnormal from a geologic timeframe. esp. considering the warming pause of the past ~20 years.

as far as the article you posted, i've read it before. it's fairly standard in that it adds another theory (southern warming -> release co2 -> increase northern warming) that, for me, would require more observable predictions to prove. that's not an easy task, but my scientific skepticism requires it.

maybe if we could see that effect happening in our modern temperature data? i'm just riffing here, but it seems like if that's the mechanism to explain the ~800 year lag where temperature increase preceeds co2 increase, then it should also be observable today.

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

#80

Post by underdown »

Cretin2 wrote: post #72
bkirkby wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

" i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit." What if you were shown the science behind the lagging you speak of? Also, what do you propose is the main culprit then? https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interm... Feel free to engage with the author. They comment frequently at the bottom.

Not believing in something does not require an alternate affirmative belief.
Post reply on HN