3 ms·

Thanks a whole lot. Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers to a report instead of handwaving about how 2500 scientists cannot be wrong. Now we are tal

Thanks a whole lot. Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers to a report instead of handwaving about how 2500 scientists cannot be wrong. Now we are talking! Edit: still ain't completely sold. Anyone has pointers to why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago or can prove that this is wrong?

acqq 11y ago
> why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago That what you name "significantly" was during the change of the parts of degrees C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period Compare to IPPC estimates: two whole degrees change are the most optimistic expectations and assume almost no use of fossil fuels in future, compared to now. > Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers See my other comment here, I also give the link to the raw data and the programs of the models too. And the books that teach the basic formulas involved. It is all real, and the effective consensus of the scientists is not accidental. There's immense scientific work on one side, almost no scientific work on another, and people have the impression that it's 50:50 only because the other side gets so much "air time." See also how that other side is really the one which effectively lives from being there: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-c...
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Thanks again. You did something right that I can't remember having seen before in the threads I have participated in. Now that I have hopefully established myself as an uninformed but intelligent sceptic, not denier, here are two pointers as to why the explanation kind of worked this time: * links to the actual report, and the intro part. Most people, even in technical forums, assumes malice right away, starts telling me how "2500 scientists can't be wrong" and that I should read the report, all while leaving me with a not-so-subtle feeling that they never read it themselves. * actually, to a degree at least, answer my question about Greenland instead of immediately assuming malice and bringing out the troll hunting gear. This is, IIRC, the first time I have seen a serious answer that partly covers that question. On my side I might read a bit more in the report, note one AGW person who isn't all torch and pitchforks and possibly change my mind. (I already live kind of carefully but because I don't like wasting resources, not because I have believed in AGW so far.)
  - acqq 11y ago
    I'm really happy to know that what I wrote meant something to you. Thank you for writing me about that. Please also read the main points from "America's Climate Choices" by the US The National Academy of Sciences (1): http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781 http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781 That's the US scientific consensus: "Each report is produced by a committee of experts selected by the Academy to address a particular statement of task and is subject to a rigorous, independent peer review; while the reports represent views of the committee, they also are endorsed by the Academy." ------ 1) chartered by the US Congress in 1863 at the request of President Lincoln

acqq 11y ago

> why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago That what you name "significantly" was during the change of the parts of degrees C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period Compare to IPPC estimates: two whole degrees change are the most optimistic expectations and assume almost no use of fossil fuels in future, compared to now. > Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers See my other comment here, I also give the link to the raw data and the programs of the models too. And the books that teach the basic formulas involved. It is all real, and the effective consensus of the scientists is not accidental. There's immense scientific work on one side, almost no scientific work on another, and people have the impression that it's 50:50 only because the other side gets so much "air time." See also how that other side is really the one which effectively lives from being there: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-c...

reitanqild 11y ago
Thanks again. You did something right that I can't remember having seen before in the threads I have participated in. Now that I have hopefully established myself as an uninformed but intelligent sceptic, not denier, here are two pointers as to why the explanation kind of worked this time: * links to the actual report, and the intro part. Most people, even in technical forums, assumes malice right away, starts telling me how "2500 scientists can't be wrong" and that I should read the report, all while leaving me with a not-so-subtle feeling that they never read it themselves. * actually, to a degree at least, answer my question about Greenland instead of immediately assuming malice and bringing out the troll hunting gear. This is, IIRC, the first time I have seen a serious answer that partly covers that question. On my side I might read a bit more in the report, note one AGW person who isn't all torch and pitchforks and possibly change my mind. (I already live kind of carefully but because I don't like wasting resources, not because I have believed in AGW so far.)
- acqq 11y ago
  I'm really happy to know that what I wrote meant something to you. Thank you for writing me about that. Please also read the main points from "America's Climate Choices" by the US The National Academy of Sciences (1): http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781 http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781 That's the US scientific consensus: "Each report is produced by a committee of experts selected by the Academy to address a particular statement of task and is subject to a rigorous, independent peer review; while the reports represent views of the committee, they also are endorsed by the Academy." ------ 1) chartered by the US Congress in 1863 at the request of President Lincoln