3 ms·

That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. T

That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al. Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.

danharaj 11y ago
It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?
- epicureanideal 11y ago
  I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
    - epicureanideal 11y ago
      There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?
- giggles_giggles 11y ago
  edit: [nevermind, I know better than to post comments on HN]
  - rybosome 11y ago
    This is a challenging viewpoint. It could theoretically be correct, but what if it wasn't? What if there truly is an imminent threat to the stability of our civilization, and we are still debating its existence when we should be acting? This is where examining the evidence and arguments is important. If this whole thing were a conspiracy propping up unnecessary research, then the arguments would be weak and the evidence would be inconclusive. Unfortunately for humanity, this is not the case.
scott_s 11y ago
Globally, sea ice is declining, and has been for a while: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246 (That's pulled from the end of the blog post I linked elsewhere.) Quoting directly from what I just linked: Claire Parkinson (http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/claire.l.parkinson http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/claire.l.parkinson) has been studying polar sea ice for about four decades. She has been speaking to public audiences for nearly as long. And it was those public audiences who provoked one of the NASA climatologist’s latest research projects. “When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”
Delmania 11y ago
> Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical. Here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ These, by the way, are a common defenses used by skeptics: this might be a cycle and not understanding what is meant by global warming. The preferred term is climate change. Yes, it has been colder in the past, and yes, it still snows. What has changed is the pattern of cold weather. Here's a relevant XCKD: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/. Essentially, it get cold, but it's doesn't stay cold. Also, the patterns of storms have changed. We've always had blizzards and tropical storms, but the intensity of these storms has ramped up. The claim of a cyclical nature is questionable considering the data highly suggests a correlation between rising CO2 levels and the global temperature. The point that is missing out is that this is referring to the global average warmth, and our weather systems are VERY sensitive to this. Even a small change, like 2 to 4 degrees will have devastating effects.
hackuser 11y ago
> Here's what I think. ... Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now People think all sorts of interesting and plausible thoughts and hypotheses; that doesn't make them correct. People once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, which seems plausible when you look outside. How do we distinguish between true and false hypotheses? Science! The hypothesis you describe is interesting but not a new one. It has been carefully considered and ruled out by almost all scientists involved - based not on an idea in someone's mind but on extensive evidence, it's almost certain that global warming is caused by humans. A good place to read about the evidence would be the IPCC[1]; their summary reports are succinct, and written clearly for non-scientists. We'll never be absolutely certain, but we'll never be absolutely certain of anything and would never take any action if we waited to meet that standard. What will you say to the millions who die, starve, lose their homes and wealth: 'I didn't know?' We could not have more or clearer warnings. I feel we have a great responsbility and need to act immediately or blood will be on our hands, just like the people who refused to act in the face of catastrophes in the past. [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ipcc.ch/
denim_chicken 11y ago
> Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. I'm pretty sure that climatologists are acutely aware of the nature of the climate. > But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical. According to the IPCC AR 5 (which I'm sure a well-informed skeptic such as yourself have perused), there is a 95-100% probability that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are responsible for at least half of the warming observed from 1950-2010. Are you not satisfied with this certainty level?
saalweachter 11y ago
I think it's a lot easier to accept man-made global warming when you realize how significant humans are on a global scale. There's two numbers that blow my mind every time I think about them. The first is the energy produced by the radioactive decay at the fiery core of the Earth: 45 terawatts. That power is enough to move the continents around the globe. The second is the energy produced by human industry -- all of our coal plants, oil burned, nuclear power, solar & wind, the whole 9 yards: 16 terawatts. That's 1/3 the power generated by the entire rest of the Earth, down to the core, and it's growing: if it grows at the same rate as it has historically, in 25 or 30 years we'll surpass the core entirely. Humans aren't just insignificant specks on the surface of the Earth, we're major players, comparable to its fiery core. Knowing that, is it so surprising we can affect the climate significantly?

danharaj 11y ago

It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?

epicureanideal 11y ago
I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
  - epicureanideal 11y ago
    There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?
giggles_giggles 11y ago
edit: [nevermind, I know better than to post comments on HN]
- rybosome 11y ago
  This is a challenging viewpoint. It could theoretically be correct, but what if it wasn't? What if there truly is an imminent threat to the stability of our civilization, and we are still debating its existence when we should be acting? This is where examining the evidence and arguments is important. If this whole thing were a conspiracy propping up unnecessary research, then the arguments would be weak and the evidence would be inconclusive. Unfortunately for humanity, this is not the case.

scott_s 11y ago

Globally, sea ice is declining, and has been for a while: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246 (That's pulled from the end of the blog post I linked elsewhere.) Quoting directly from what I just linked: Claire Parkinson (http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/claire.l.parkinson http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/claire.l.parkinson) has been studying polar sea ice for about four decades. She has been speaking to public audiences for nearly as long. And it was those public audiences who provoked one of the NASA climatologist’s latest research projects. “When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”

Delmania 11y ago

> Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical. Here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ These, by the way, are a common defenses used by skeptics: this might be a cycle and not understanding what is meant by global warming. The preferred term is climate change. Yes, it has been colder in the past, and yes, it still snows. What has changed is the pattern of cold weather. Here's a relevant XCKD: https://xkcd.com/1321/ https://xkcd.com/1321/. Essentially, it get cold, but it's doesn't stay cold. Also, the patterns of storms have changed. We've always had blizzards and tropical storms, but the intensity of these storms has ramped up. The claim of a cyclical nature is questionable considering the data highly suggests a correlation between rising CO2 levels and the global temperature. The point that is missing out is that this is referring to the global average warmth, and our weather systems are VERY sensitive to this. Even a small change, like 2 to 4 degrees will have devastating effects.

hackuser 11y ago

> Here's what I think. ... Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now People think all sorts of interesting and plausible thoughts and hypotheses; that doesn't make them correct. People once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, which seems plausible when you look outside. How do we distinguish between true and false hypotheses? Science! The hypothesis you describe is interesting but not a new one. It has been carefully considered and ruled out by almost all scientists involved - based not on an idea in someone's mind but on extensive evidence, it's almost certain that global warming is caused by humans. A good place to read about the evidence would be the IPCC[1]; their summary reports are succinct, and written clearly for non-scientists. We'll never be absolutely certain, but we'll never be absolutely certain of anything and would never take any action if we waited to meet that standard. What will you say to the millions who die, starve, lose their homes and wealth: 'I didn't know?' We could not have more or clearer warnings. I feel we have a great responsbility and need to act immediately or blood will be on our hands, just like the people who refused to act in the face of catastrophes in the past. [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ipcc.ch/

denim_chicken 11y ago

> Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. I'm pretty sure that climatologists are acutely aware of the nature of the climate. > But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical. According to the IPCC AR 5 (which I'm sure a well-informed skeptic such as yourself have perused), there is a 95-100% probability that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are responsible for at least half of the warming observed from 1950-2010. Are you not satisfied with this certainty level?

saalweachter 11y ago

I think it's a lot easier to accept man-made global warming when you realize how significant humans are on a global scale. There's two numbers that blow my mind every time I think about them. The first is the energy produced by the radioactive decay at the fiery core of the Earth: 45 terawatts. That power is enough to move the continents around the globe. The second is the energy produced by human industry -- all of our coal plants, oil burned, nuclear power, solar & wind, the whole 9 yards: 16 terawatts. That's 1/3 the power generated by the entire rest of the Earth, down to the core, and it's growing: if it grows at the same rate as it has historically, in 25 or 30 years we'll surpass the core entirely. Humans aren't just insignificant specks on the surface of the Earth, we're major players, comparable to its fiery core. Knowing that, is it so surprising we can affect the climate significantly?