Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

climate.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#41

Post by ced »

TerraHertz wrote: post #37

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

How do you know the people behind the link you gave aren't self-interested?

Besides, just because a foolish/corrupted person says X, doesn't mean that NOT X is true.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#42

Post by lutorm »

TerraHertz wrote: post #37

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me.

And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#43

Post by jbooth »

todayiamme wrote: post #32

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words; "The planet is fine.... The people are fucked." http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&#38... Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds…

Well, lots of other species, too, but yeah, in case there's any confusion: Nobody's saying that global warming will lead to the end of the planet as a mass of rock that supports life in some form.

But if we care about how convenient it is to live on? Then global warming is worth trying to avoid, probably.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#44

Post by jbooth »

TerraHertz wrote: post #37

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#45

Post by mcritz »

So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s “so-called” Principle.

Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#46

Post by jbooth »

mcritz wrote: post #45

So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s “so-called” Principle. Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?

The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a bunch of crap about "gaia" or something.

So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be 100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the sky is blue".

Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#47

Post by [deleted] »

lutorm wrote: post #40
raquo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now, I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the usual suspect. But many normal people would…

The magnitude of the fluctuations should really be judged against the error bars, not against zero. That's what tells you whether the change is significant.

[deleted]

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#49

Post by enko »

jbooth wrote: post #44
TerraHertz wrote: post #37

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer." So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective. Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money?…

I think what you say is wrong. I am reasonably confident that in any middling govt job, eg school teacher, in which advancement relies on lip service for the status quo, you would be sure to see 95% support for same.

"Trying to make money off a scam" is way too strong. "Trying to keep their heads down and fit in" maybe. I can see that happening, sure. BTW I am neither for nor against global warming†, just wanted to disagree with your thesis.

† I really just don't know what to think.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#50

Post by ced »

jbooth wrote: post #44
TerraHertz wrote: post #37

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer." So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective. Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money?…

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not idealize it.

Post reply on HN