5 ms·

So there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 releas

by cel1ne 11y ago

So there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 release, which is caused by coal-burning by mankind. Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right? Is that what you are saying?

dozzie 11y ago
We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
- Aeolos 11y ago
  > You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions. This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying. Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't. Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3]. [1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1&post=30509481# http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough... [3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
  - dozzie 11y ago
    I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
    - Aeolos 11y ago
      > First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1] > And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point. So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. [1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
      - dozzie 11y ago
        >> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. > Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening? > So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  >We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. No, but a large chunk of the US population believes in this stuff even today. And they vote. That's why we're doomed.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >We had thousands of astrology and magic practitioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. What made their practices bogus was that it wasn't scientific. So you're using an argument that undermines your very conclusion. The analogy to proponents of astrology and magic would be people who doubt the scientific consensus.
Aeolos 11y ago
Some people have convinced themselves that climate change is not a problem. That's not based on scientific facts, but on superstitious beliefs ("it's a conspiracy", "we didn't do it", "there's nothing we can do about it anyway"). Study after study has showed that superstition cannot be overcome with facts. The more facts you present, the more they get stuck to their incorrect beliefs. It's depressing. The only solution is to do what Elon Musk is doing: ignore the idiots and pursue what you believe is right.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  There's a problem with this, however: we live in mostly democratic societies (and the non-democratic societies like China are even more carbon-polluting). So you can't just ignore the idiots and still fix the problem; you have to get them to agree there's a problem so they'll vote in people who will do something about it. And, as you point out, these people can't be convinced with facts. So, the real solution is to just ignore the idiots and start preparing for a future that resembles Mad Max. Or be like Musk and work really hard on establishing a colony on Mars before you're too old to make the journey there.
vaadu 11y ago
Maybe the skeptics don't like the idea of the alarmists hiding the raw data and then telling us what the results say.
- Aeolos 11y ago
  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ 1. RTFM 2. Use high-school level math 3. Post your results to hackernews for discussion Up to the challenge?

by cel1ne 11y ago

dozzie 11y ago

We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.

Aeolos 11y ago
> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions. This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying. Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't. Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3]. [1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1&post=30509481# http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough... [3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
- dozzie 11y ago
  I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
  - Aeolos 11y ago
    > First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1] > And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point. So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. [1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
    - dozzie 11y ago
      >> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. > Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening? > So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
Grishnakh 11y ago
>We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. No, but a large chunk of the US population believes in this stuff even today. And they vote. That's why we're doomed.
coldtea 11y ago
>We had thousands of astrology and magic practitioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. What made their practices bogus was that it wasn't scientific. So you're using an argument that undermines your very conclusion. The analogy to proponents of astrology and magic would be people who doubt the scientific consensus.

Aeolos 11y ago

Some people have convinced themselves that climate change is not a problem. That's not based on scientific facts, but on superstitious beliefs ("it's a conspiracy", "we didn't do it", "there's nothing we can do about it anyway"). Study after study has showed that superstition cannot be overcome with facts. The more facts you present, the more they get stuck to their incorrect beliefs. It's depressing. The only solution is to do what Elon Musk is doing: ignore the idiots and pursue what you believe is right.

Grishnakh 11y ago
There's a problem with this, however: we live in mostly democratic societies (and the non-democratic societies like China are even more carbon-polluting). So you can't just ignore the idiots and still fix the problem; you have to get them to agree there's a problem so they'll vote in people who will do something about it. And, as you point out, these people can't be convinced with facts. So, the real solution is to just ignore the idiots and start preparing for a future that resembles Mad Max. Or be like Musk and work really hard on establishing a colony on Mars before you're too old to make the journey there.

vaadu 11y ago

Maybe the skeptics don't like the idea of the alarmists hiding the raw data and then telling us what the results say.

Aeolos 11y ago
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ 1. RTFM 2. Use high-school level math 3. Post your results to hackernews for discussion Up to the challenge?