7 ms·

This youtube channel has a lot of videos by scientists regarding global warming. https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_id=2&view=0 https:

• martythemaniak 10y ago
  Indeed. Much more eloquently put by our great leader: The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. - President Trump
  • marcosdumay 10y ago
    Somehow, he is right. And he must be really upset, because that is replacing an age where everybody was completely sure about anything that powerful people (like him) wanted them to be.
    • harwoodleon 10y ago
      Unfortunately, there is no consensus algorithm to prove him wrong on this point. Upset? I think he's doing just fine btw.
• epistasis 10y ago
  Curious about an appeal to the authority of this "Dr. Salby," I went to his Wikipedia page: >In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.[2] He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[3] He is unconvincing as an authority on the subject due to his ethical issues. As far as presenting an actual argument, let's see it as traditional scientific papers rather than a collection of YouTube videos, hmm?
  • pdx 10y ago
    Why don't you watch the lecture, hmmm? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM Nobody "appealed to authority". I only gave you his name. You, however, spent 2 minutes to dig up some dirt on the internet, in a desperate attempt to discredit without actually looking at his argument.
    • Oletros 10y ago
      When a channel is almost composed of "lectures" from "scientists" in the International Conference on Climate Change[0] it says all that is is needed to know about the channel > The International Conference on Climate Change is a conference series organized and sponsored by The Heartland Institute which aims to bring together global warming skeptics who "dispute that the science is settled on the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Cl...
  • Robi395 10y ago
    While this guy does have a shady past, It would be better to shown why his data or logic is false/inaccurate; and not base argument against him on his résumé, if only to better educate people watching the video.
    • Oletros 10y ago
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura...
      • Robi395 10y ago
        I quickly glanced over the post, it looks great. This kind of rebuttal is more convincing to a misinformed audience than saying, "the guy is bad". On the other hand, the frustration from people continuously spreading scientifically wrong ideas is understandable.
• username223 10y ago
  Who is Murry Salby? Wikipedia to the rescue: > From the mid 1980s, Salby conducted research out of University of Colorado Boulder. In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money... In 2013 he was dismissed by [Macquarie University] on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby It gives one pause.
  • saycheese 10y ago
    Clickable link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby
  • mattlevan 10y ago
    To be fair, though, even if he had displayed a "pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money is not a valid argument against his climate science.
    • epistasis 10y ago
      But it is a reason to disbelieve any of his claims and any data that he has generated. The logic can be trusted if one can go back to other data generators. At that point, what purpose does he serve as a scientist? Are you going to go check all his citations and make sure that he's not misapplying them? There is also great reason to doubt his science: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura... As those are pretty basic errors to be making. Basically he's a total mess.
    • username223 10y ago
      He did it twice! After getting kicked out of a top-tier university, he got a job at some obscure place, then got kicked out of that. Maybe he's a genius who sees things that 99% of climate scientists don't see, but can't follow basic institutional rules. I'll remain skeptical.
• deadcast 10y ago
  Please keep your conspiracy theory propaganda off of HN. You're a danger to the world we live in. Ty.
  • pdx 10y ago
    Why don't you want HN readers to watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM This is a scientific lecture, given by a professor. I found it very interesting. Why does it threaten you so much?
    • findK 10y ago
      This is 2017.. you are saying you are not convinced by global warming. How can anyone take you seriously? Go back to reddit
      • pdx 10y ago
        I've been on HN a bit longer than you have. On most subjects, HN is outstanding, but when it comes to AGW, it's a bit of an Al Gore echo chamber. Why don't you watch the lecture?
        • Oletros 10y ago
          Al Gore? I didn't knew he was an scientist. Perhaps people here reads what actual climate scientists say and doesn't talk about Gore
        • epistasis 10y ago
          This is a technical matter, not a political one. Your mention of Al Gore makes me think that for you, it's a political battle and not a technical or scientific matter. There are now two very good reasons not to watch the video: 1) the lecture is by a dishonest man and we are being asked to trust that his models and judgement are accurate, and 2) it's most likely that the video was posted for a political agenda and not scientific or technical edification. An "echo chamber" when it comes to science usually means that things have been mostly figured out correctly. An "echo chamber" for political discussions is where it could be considered a bad thing.
• DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  I have the same feeling towards gravity!
• orf 10y ago
  https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura... Please read this and respond.
• padseeker 10y ago
  I'll consider your request after you consider reading the 99%+ of the content supporting the science based community that advocates that global warming is happening and is the result of human activity. Then we'll talk.
  • pdx 10y ago
    Done and Done! Let's talk. There is a body of evidence that correlates CO2 to Temperature. Where I think this falls down is the causality. There is evidence that CO2 is caused by higher temperatures, rather than is the cause of them. We see lags of a thousand years in ice core samples, where temperature goes up, and 500 to 1000 years later, CO2 goes up. This is waved away as "due to solar variability", but when solar variability is used by non AGW proponents, they are ridiculed. This is obviously cherry picking of data.
    • yongjik 10y ago
      This is a common misconception, so maybe it warrants explanation. Imagine there are two large reservoirs, connected via a narrow pipe. One is CO2. Another is Temperature. The pipe represents feedback mechanism, when one becomes higher, that also causes the other to go up. (Obviously the real Earth is much more complicated, but you get the idea.) Now imagine that the Temperature lake slowly gets more water. (Say, the sun becomes slightly brighter, or a continent drift away, reducing the amount of glaciers reflecting sunlight.) As the temperature goes up, CO2 starts to follow, lagging behind. Which also makes the temperature goes up even further, but not as much as the initial change. Eventually it stabilizes. (Obviously, if the feedback coefficient is >1.0, we'll be Venus now. Thank god.) Now imagine someone suddenly dumps a lot of water in the CO2 lake, causing its level to jump up instantly. What do you think will happen? > ...when solar variability is used by non AGW proponents, they are ridiculed. Well, yeah, duh, when we can exactly measure the solar irradiation and it's trending downhill right now, anyone using that to explain away AGW would be ridiculed. What did you expect?
    • padseeker 10y ago
      Fact #1 Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Fact #2 Fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide - roughly 40 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere in 2014. Fact #3 The quantity of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing in the atmosphere - It was roughly 320 PPM (Parts Per Million) around 1960, and currently over 400 PPM Fact #4 The temperature of Earth has been steadily climbing Which one of these facts do you take issue with?
• padseeker 10y ago
  I'll consider your request after you consider reading the 99%+ of the content supporting the science based community that advocates that global warming is happening and is the result of human activity. Then we'll talk.