I haven't realized how anti science HN is. Scary.
Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
51–60 of 98 posts
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't straw man your argument. I said that your statement that correlation does not imply causation, essentially, negates the previous statement that you aren't denying human caused global warming. That is a thing that you said. It's up there. I didn't fabricate anything. I didn't exaggerate. I didn't misrepresent. I asked you what would be the worst thing to happen if we tried to stop global warming. Then I told…
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase. It neither confirms or denies global warming, it simply says you have to be careful when you evaluate any given data set. If temperatures were dropping, I'd say the same thing. The goal of science is not to prove what you believe in, it is to attempt to disprove your hypothesis (that is science 101). Even if I were arguing against AGW (which I am not), it is…
> "Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase.
In scientific context it is neutral. In political context it absolutely isn't.
For example, it's also the (ridiculous) argument used to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that you can't prove whether smoking causes cancer or whether cancer and smoking have a hidden shared cause. This became a fairly large debate in the 90s, even though the science is pretty one sided. If a scientific discussion can be derailed by arguments that are technically valid, that's a political problem.
In the case of global warming scientists can still disagree among themselves (as good scientists should), but from a political perspective there's consensus science has been settled 30 or so years ago. It's real, it's caused by us and now action has to be taken. Truisms like "Correlation does not imply causation" in a political context just impede the political change we need.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#53It's cold and snowing outside, and the 'climate change' alarmists are still going and going and going. I was assuming that the climate change scam would go away with today's headlines, but maybe it will be like the Loch Ness monster -- forever some people still think it might be real.
so if i point out that it's really #@#!@# hot all over Australia at the moment, you'll concede that it's true? FFS the weather responds to the energy balance, it's not a nice +2 deg added to everyone's location.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? Why even bring this up unless trying to cast a disparaging light onto global warming? You are, in fact, denying human caused global warming in your last comment, "I'm just saying that correlation does not equal causation." Every time I see this argument it's usually the first statement in the 'human's aren't really causing global warming, so we shouldn't try to fix it' circle-jerk. What is the worst thing that…
> What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming, human caused or not? It costs money. And why should we? If humans are really able to have a significant impact on the climate, we should try to warm the planet. I would personally prefer about 3 C warmer climate (central europe). > Stop it. No, you stop being so fucking patronizing.
> And why should we?
3 C rise in atmospheric temperature is not what I'd be worried about. It's the increased sea temperature, which will result in higher sea levels and greater levels of moisture in the air. Meteorological events could become vastly more frequent and powerful. But you are right, 3 C rise will be balmy. You know best.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's horrible how climate change is now a religion not a science. "Deniers and believers".
I'm a little confused about the anti-GMO folks who believe in climate change since the science argument applies to both but they only believe it in one case. // I'm in the only way to stop current energy generation techniques is to invent something cheaper than gas and coal. Anything else won't stop the upcoming economies (e.g. China) from using gas and coal no matter how they pollute.
Some people don't resort to pseudoscience when making arguments againsts GMOs.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#56http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks like a dramatic drop. If you look at it in the span of several years, that drop looks somewhat trivial. Same thing goes for climate change. Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warm…
Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation:
"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming, human caused or not? It costs money. And why should we? If humans are really able to have a significant impact on the climate, we should try to warm the planet. I would personally prefer about 3 C warmer climate (central europe). > Stop it. No, you stop being so fucking patronizing.
> And why should we? 3 C rise in atmospheric temperature is not what I'd be worried about. It's the increased sea temperature, which will result in higher sea levels and greater levels of moisture in the air. Meteorological events could become vastly more frequent and powerful. But you are right, 3 C rise will be balmy. You know best.
> higher sea levels
I'm sure we'll deal with it. It's a (good) price for low energy prices.
> Meteorological events could become vastly more frequent and powerful.
I hope so, the weather is pretty boring here.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget we're also near the end of a mini ice age so we should be expecting the earth to heat up. A lot of people forget this. Antarctica was once warm...
Climate scientists are very well aware of this.
> Climate scientists are very well aware of this.
For example, the IPCC report itself.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#59http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks like a dramatic drop. If you look at it in the span of several years, that drop looks somewhat trivial. Same thing goes for climate change. Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warm…
Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Yes, the question of "Is there AGW?" is not a debate, at least among scientists. The important question is "how much do humans affect the warming of the earth?" To date, we have not been able to determine this accurately because there are so many factors (our CO2 emissions, emissions from cows, volcanoes, under-sea vents, emissions reduced by trees and plants, increased output from the sun, etc - let alone measuring one of these accurately across the globe). A million variables, no way to isolate any two of them. There might be a "consensus" but that does not guarantee accuracy - I encourage you to write a computer program that will determine the global temperature next year, and see how accurate your prediction is - you will likely find it impossible, because among other things you do not know which volcanoes will erupt and how much more radiation the sun will output. 10-20 years ago, the consensus was that sea levels would rise by a few meters, but that has not happened.
Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? Why even bring this up unless trying to cast a disparaging light onto global warming? You are, in fact, denying human caused global warming in your last comment, "I'm just saying that correlation does not equal causation." Every time I see this argument it's usually the first statement in the 'human's aren't really causing global warming, so we shouldn't try to fix it' circle-jerk. What is the worst thing that…
> What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming, human caused or not? It costs money. And why should we? If humans are really able to have a significant impact on the climate, we should try to warm the planet. I would personally prefer about 3 C warmer climate (central europe). > Stop it. No, you stop being so fucking patronizing.
Sorry, but just as you are worried about having to spend to pay the cost of cleaning the air, others are worried about the cost of having their homes flooded or go through a prolonged drought ... therefore, it is good to try to think on both sides too.