Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#National_an...

Second, for your video clip, it references a paper from the 1800s that claims to predict the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on the temperature of the atmosphere and mentions that that prediction agrees with what we get from our climate models. Okay: But as I pointed out and gave a reference, the climate models predicted temperatures that now we can compare with actual tempertures and see that nearly all the predictions were way too high. I wrote this; I did that. It's silly to have to write it again simply because you didn't read it the first time.

The talk goes on, mentions greenhouse gasses, and then concludes that the greenhouses gasses are warming the atmosphere. He concludes "simple". I thoroughly debunked that claim.

Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, this time just for you, maybe you will actually read it this time, (1) the ice core and other historical records show NO, zip, zero, zilch, times that significant cooling was closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, the cooling had another cause. And the records show at most only one time when significant warming was closely preceded by significantly higher CO2, and that was as we were pulling out of the Little Ice Age.

For (2), as I showed with the modeling predictions compared with actual temperatures, the modeling failed massively.

So, net, from this data, we have to reject the claim that CO2 has a significant effect on temperature and, instead, conclude that so far it appears that CO2 has no significant effect on atmospheric temperature. That's what the ice core and other historical data says, and the failed models don't change that.

Here's one more: In your video clip, he shows ice core data for the last 400,000 years. There can see temperature and CO2 going up and down roughly together. But, as has been observed and explained many times, the CO2 went up about 800 years AFTER the temperature went up, and, as I mentioned, not even once was significantly higher temperature closely preceded by significantly higher CO2. So, no way can we conclude from that data that higher CO2 caused higher temperatures. Instead, from that data, higher temperatures caused higher CO2 800 years later. Moreover, as I mentioned, not once in that data were lower temperatures closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, lower CO2 didn't cause the cooling. Indeed, the higher CO2 from the warming didn't stop the cooling!

From that data, we have to conclude that CO2 has essentially no significant effect on temperature at all and that the temperature changes have causes other than CO2..

The video has the guy looking right at the data that contradicts his claims, and he still makes his claims. Maybe he is an idiot, is getting paid, is in some quasi-religious quest, or some such. But his lecture content is junk.

His video clip is long, but already we know that he has made some debilitating mistakes.

Your video clip should get you to read, pay attention to, understand, and accept what I wrote.

Read it again.

If a question of research can indeed be settled in a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews, then that question is, in a sense, pre-modern, out of its simplicity alone.

In the modern world: For each of your paragraphs, I can be almost sure to find a long trail of researchers having carefully evaluated it. The story is never as simple as you make it out to be. If anything, your over-confidence sets off my anti-vaxxer flat-earther alarm. But show me sources and I'll read them (then for each of those I can go and find the 10 papers proving those wrong, then the 10 papers proving those papers wrong again; and so on...). In the modern world, the story is never as simple as you make it out to be.

PS: Your concrete arguments is the least interesting part of what you write. The interesting part is that you think something is simple enough that you should be able to convince us about it in a HackerNews post, yet IPCC is either consciously or subsconsciously overlooking it. You must be aware that this is basically a conspiracy theory (that doesn't make it false of course, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be correct).

I bring you the Wikipedia page for Heartland institute to show how oil is funding the sceptics; also it is deeply human to want to believe there is no disaster coming. Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity?

The IPCC, Al Gore, Paris Accords, etc. are all just that stupid.

You found nothing wrong with what I wrote. The debunking is easy, needs only very simple arguments, and I gave some.

I almost lack words at this point. I hope you never come in a decision where you need to judge a scientific inquiry in a way that has consequences for others. At least not about anything more complex than, indeed, whether it is dangerous to jump off a tall building.

At the point where you have to declare that the others are just idiots you KNOW that you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. At the very least, you need to spend some time looking into the counter-arguments.

No, I certainly should not just find the ice core data on the internet. To do anything useful with that data I would need to understand how it was gathered, the physical processes that lead to the gases being absorbed, whether gases move within the ice after freezing, what the uncertainty in mapping centimeters to years, and a thousand questions like that which I can't even know that I should ask. At the very minimum, I should look through the data through a statistical model including uncertainties.

Since I don't have a year to study the science of ice core data fulltime, I need to rely on papers written up and conclusions made by those who know the data better. Ideally both papers written by climate change supporters and sceptics. Ideally peer-reviewed, but if there's a conspiracy going on I can always read rejected papers...

But just downloading and looking and drawing consequences from that myself -- or worse, look at some simplified plot made by some conspiracy theorist and draw conclusions from that -- if I do that I might as well make myself a nice tin-foil-hat and become a member of flat earth society.

I've almost completed a PhD in astrophysics right now, and I know that if someone were to just download the images taken of the cosmic microwave background and conclude anything at all from them, without knowing the full details of the assumed physical models, instrumental effects, and the data analysis pipeline, the results would be ludicrous. That doesn't mean our results are ludicrous though, because we've spent years understanding the data.

All data needs to be deeply understood before drawing any conclusions. I certainly don't understand ice core data, and since you're not giving me any papers I bet you don't understand ice core data either. You are simply repeating arguments made by others who, hopefully do -- hence I asked for references. Your assurances and explanations here are worthless; that doesn't mean one shouldn't discuss science in social media, but when one does, it can only be as summaries of what people who do know the data well are saying (but if you got it from the documentary I guess I can pick up the trail from there).

Scientists screw it up all the time. That I can support. But the issue just being "too simple" for scientists to understand, and everyone just being stupid, and the matter really being very simple -- then I know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. If you end up being right in the end, and global warming is wrong, then it is not because you are brilliant, it is because you lucked out in seeing the right documentary first.