What's Really Warming the World? • Hacker News Board

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#521

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 1:14 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #481

DougWebb wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we can do something, but what? Do we build walls around the cities so they don't flood, or do we set up a scheme where developing countries pay a ransom to rich countries so they can continue to pollute, while rich countries starve their poor citizens of affordable energy while funnelling tax money into companies owned by rich citizens to do R&D work on energy sources that won't be viable on a large scale for d…

The issue that I have with the folks who advocate anthropogenic climate change is that near as I can tell there is no way to preserve the standard of living on the planet (feed, clothe, power, etc) and end climate change soon enough, the only way to get even a 50% cut of emissions within a decade is effectively managing to reduce the population of the planet by a similar number. I think we'd be better off figuring ou…

...and just let it continue. How convenient. Pretend nobody's responsible, and its inevitable, and just insulate your house and hunker down I guess.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#522

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

alayne wrote: post #497

paulhauggis wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming." Again, "Do the fucking resea…

"Climate Gate" was investigated and turned up "no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

By the same organization it was against. This conflict of interest should be questioned by anyone.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#523

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #468

paulhauggis wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think the IPCC gets funded? Do you honestly think they would publish a report that bites the hand that feeds them? We need more independent studies. If this were a big corporation funding a study on Climate change and it didn't fit the narrative, this is exactly what you would be saying. When Money and Politics gets involved, the facts get muddied and hidden.

>The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments. Its secretariat is hosted by the WMO, in Geneva. What interest do these organizations have in inaccurate science? How could they possibly be more neutral?

"What interest do these organizations have in inaccurate science? How could they possibly be more neutral?"

If climate change is not man-made, they will no longer get funded. It's just as biased as any big company doing the same research, but it's excused because it's somehow seen as more 'scientific'

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#524

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:42 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #456

paulhauggis wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that? I am a little older and more experienced, that might be it. But I shouldn't really be that surprised from a community that willingly rallies around ideas that continues to subjugate them. It puts me about 10 steps ahead of the majority of people. I don't need your acceptance.

> Why is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others"

I agree with this. Thanks for the link!

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#525

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #339

paulhauggis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans" Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with th…

Really? You're going to make some kind of "quality of science" comparison between anthropogenic climate change and geocentrism ?

You, like many others, still don't get the point.

The point is that just because 97% of professionals believe something is true, does not make it so.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#526

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #322

paulhauggis wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why do you want to debate instead of learn?" I do learn. I learn by looking at all evidence and facts rather than just the ones that tell me what I want to hear. Even when it's been shown that evidence has been doctored (like during Climate gate and more recently with the temperature readings), it's just explained away to further write the narrative that man has caused Climate change and anybody that questions it is…

You just crossed the Poe's Law boundary for me. In case you are actually in earnest, I'll make this easy for you. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...

"You just crossed the Poe's Law boundary for me."

Actually, all of the other comments to my post did it for me. I'm curious why seemingly intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by biased studies. Maybe it's the fire and brimstone articles.

Al gore knew this and is now a Billionaire because of it. He even tried to get the government to force entire industries to buy carbon credits from his companies. Nobody cared about this. Not even in the scientific community.

He was the one that championed the idea of "Global warming" and the scientific community followed it..even when he said foolish things like the science is "settled". I've heard this repeated over and over again. It's not..and if you say this, it's not science.

Even here on HN, anything said against him was down voted. If bullshit like this can be passed off as the truth, it again should make everyone question it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#527

Post by asgard1024 » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 4:00 PM UTC

Pinatubo wrote: post #411

hackuser wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist, which I read, unfortunately pushes propaganda about climate change (as they do about some other issues too). For example, many years ago they published an article[1] saying that a recent conference led by John Bolton[2] came to the same climate-denying conclusion as an earlier conference led by Bjorn Lomborg.[3] The Economist claimed that Bolton's results were independent corroboration for Lomborg's, s…

Lomborg has openly stated multiple times that he believes in anthropogenic climate change. How is he a "climate denier"? This post looks like a cut-and-paste from a political blog.

More correct would be to say, at the time (2006), Lomborg was a denier. He only recently turned around (although first by saying that climate change is not a serious problem), which is to his credit. Still in retrospect, people shouldn't have listened to him, he was wrong.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#528

Post by asgard1024 » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 4:06 PM UTC

darkstar999 wrote: post #242

buckbova wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With taxes of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Ok, so they collect a massive amount of taxes. Then what?

That's pretty much it. If someone wants to avoid said taxes, they should build a solar power plant.

It is certainly better than subsidies (because it lets market, not government, to decide on the best solution), although of course for politicians it's easier to create subsidies than taxes.

As for what to do with the collected money, I would suggest lowering other taxes, or just give it to everybody in the same amount.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#529

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #525

rosser wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You're going to make some kind of "quality of science" comparison between anthropogenic climate change and geocentrism ?

You, like many others, still don't get the point. The point is that just because 97% of professionals believe something is true, does not make it so.

You claim to be interested in the science, yet you reject what the overwhelming majority of scientists have to say, and only quote people who have no experience or expertise in the topic area and who produce very many innaccurate statements, which all get rapidly debunked. But because you reject science you ignore the debunking.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GlcuV_Dojwg

Did you read the IPCC report linked above yet?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#530

Post by phaemon » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #492

phaemon wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made yourself clear. To follow the metaphor, if the increase in tidal levels over the past 19.5 years were significantly different to the increase in tidal levels over (say) the past 30 years then it needs an explanation. If they were not, then the simple explanation is that 19.5 years is not enough data to draw any conclusions. That's just how it works. You can't draw a conclusion from a lack of data. EDIT: Forg…

If merpnderp were to say the null hypothesis is that the longer-term trend (1.2K/century as stated) should continue as expected even into recent decades (or perhaps "correct" the data for that relationship because we're assuming it's not up for debate), then the data for the past ~20 years would show a departure from that hypothesis, would it not? In that case, the point being shown is different from the null hypothe…

Nope, you're missing nothing. That's absolutely correct. The problem (from merpnderp's point of view) is that the data for the past ~20 years doesn't differ significantly from the 30 year (or longer) trend. It's using the lack of significance to mean something significant which is the root of the error.