Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. Here is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population." It seems we don't even know how the little ice…
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explains the response:
* Your questions do seem a little like assertions with question marks at the end, because they repeat some climate denial propaganda. In fairness, maybe that's all you've read (Suggestion: Don't get your climate science from mainstream media that is at all politicized (e.g., most UK newspapers, Fox, Huffington Post, etc.) It's a waste of time and misinformation. Try Nature (nature.com), Science (sciencemag.org), New Scientist, Scientific American; even the NY Times is better, though IME very incomplete).
* Many of the questions are easily answered with a little research, which make them look more like assertions and not like questions from someone interested in learning.
* Unfortunately, easily researched questions that repeat inflamatory propaganda don't add much to the conversation.
Perhaps on a less inflamatory subject, where others were less tired of propaganda and less concerned with it taking over the conversation, nobody would have downvoted you.
