4 ms·
And some people refuse to give in when their theory was just disproven. Really depressing.
by usertaken 11y ago
And some people refuse to give in when their theory was just disproven. Really depressing.
- Bud 11y agoWhich people? What theory was "just disproven"?
- BogusIKnow 11y agoWhat theory? That every place on earth gets warmer? Yes if you've held that theory you have been disproven.
- vlehto 11y agoIf you wish to learn about climate change, I'd recommend looking at the history of it. One key thing to look at is radiation balance. The whole field of science was lot less hyped and corrupted before the 90's. And I haven't heard of any new findings that would dramatically change that picture.
- usertaken 11y agoWhy did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin America?
- SquareWheel 11y agoSince when were there all these conspiracy nuts on HN?
- tptacek 11y agoDon't call people nuts, even when they're very wrong about things. All you accomplish by doing that is making people wonder whether this is a religious debate that they shouldn't care about.
- csallen 11y agoYou sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for climate change at all.
- jotux 11y agoWhat's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf >Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m
- usertaken 11y agoI've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science. Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?
- jotux 11y agohttps://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....
- Bud 11y agoThe "narrative" hasn't changed. The terminology of "climate change" was actively pushed by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, however, so if that's what you are referring to, there is your answer. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 BTW, we have been focusing on China; that's why the US brokered an emissions deal with China recently, which you would already know if you were seriously interested in the issue, as opposed to just being a troll.