5 ms·

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha... Page 471 has a pre

by ximeng 9y ago

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha... Page 471 has a pretty clear diagram that explains the change - increase beyond the natural ability of the carbon cycle to mitigate the change leading to steady increases in industrial area (last 150 years effectively). I don't see ice core data showing wild fluctuations over periods of 10-100k years and the ppm of atmospheric carbon is relatively stable over this period.

alphapapa 9y ago
Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?
- alphapapa 9y ago
  I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.
  - ximeng 9y ago
    I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      My apologies. Shouldn't have assumed you were the one who downvoted. > Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science. But the point is that the science is highly suspect. When scientists on the IPCC break rank and make themselves pariahs, virtually ruining their careers, that should tell you something.
      - ximeng 9y ago
        I am judging this on reading parts of the IPCC reports (see for example https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...) and the NIPCC report published by the Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/W...). Reading these two you will see two very different approaches, which reflects much of the debate I see on these subjects, including some of your comments. The NIPCC report is openly political opening with a complaint about Obama's treatment of climate change as a serious issue. It talks about circumstantial evidence, debate amongst scientists, and has a petition organised to collect signatures. (This apparently gathers signatures from 31,478 scientists of which only 9,021 have PhDs.) The IPCC report is filled with detailed diagrams and explanations of the science behind global warming. The approach generally seems sensible to someone like me with some understanding of the scientific method, although I am not qualified to analyse in depth. I am sure anybody reading it would learn something about the climate and how we can analyse it. Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. There are some very clear incentives to "break rank", as you put it. There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. Again, I don't really feel in a good position to judge who is right and who is wrong here, but I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. (Edit: also I suspect the politicisation of climate change debate and the bureaucratic process of the IPCC probably means that the science is less effective than it might otherwise be, and that the communication of this science is less convincing than it could be, to the detriment of the quality of the public debates. As I mentioned in another comment it's quite painful to link to the IPCC report and they prevent people from redistributing it without permission, meaning the format is basically fixed in an unhelpful set of massive PDFs. Sad!)
  - sctb 9y ago
    Please stop violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      Ok, I'm done. Please delete my account. Hacker News is comprised primarily of people who do not wish to discuss a variety of viewpoints freely. Any comment that strays from the "party line" is immediately downvoted, usually without response from anyone. The "silent hand" of disapproval shames into submission or obscurity. The ideological purity of the community is preserved at all costs--especially at the cost of intellectual diversity. I see comment after comment, ones that are completely reasonable and polite, downvoted into grayness because they disagree with the prevailing opinion. Instead of posting a reasonable, polite rebuttal--you know, furthering the pursuit of knowledge and understanding--people anonymously click the "I disapprove" button and censor opposing views. And you and dang don't do a thing about it. The people downvoting comments like that are completely abusing their downvote privilege, but it never stops. Then you revoke my upvoting privilege after I correctively upvote some unfairly downvoted comments. Apparently that's "working as intended" at Hacker News. Even Slashdot, as far a cry as it is now from its historical golden era, is a bastion of open-mindedness compared to HN. So why should I waste my time here? You want to have your echo chamber, well hey, it's your site. I can tell when I'm not wanted. And unlike many here, I would not force my views on anyone.
      - debaserab2 9y ago
        When you continuously argue against the basic merits of science in a forum based around science and technology you're probably not going to have a great time.

by ximeng 9y ago

alphapapa 9y ago

Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?

alphapapa 9y ago
I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.
- ximeng 9y ago
  I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    My apologies. Shouldn't have assumed you were the one who downvoted. > Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science. But the point is that the science is highly suspect. When scientists on the IPCC break rank and make themselves pariahs, virtually ruining their careers, that should tell you something.
    - ximeng 9y ago
      I am judging this on reading parts of the IPCC reports (see for example https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...) and the NIPCC report published by the Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/W...). Reading these two you will see two very different approaches, which reflects much of the debate I see on these subjects, including some of your comments. The NIPCC report is openly political opening with a complaint about Obama's treatment of climate change as a serious issue. It talks about circumstantial evidence, debate amongst scientists, and has a petition organised to collect signatures. (This apparently gathers signatures from 31,478 scientists of which only 9,021 have PhDs.) The IPCC report is filled with detailed diagrams and explanations of the science behind global warming. The approach generally seems sensible to someone like me with some understanding of the scientific method, although I am not qualified to analyse in depth. I am sure anybody reading it would learn something about the climate and how we can analyse it. Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. There are some very clear incentives to "break rank", as you put it. There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. Again, I don't really feel in a good position to judge who is right and who is wrong here, but I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. (Edit: also I suspect the politicisation of climate change debate and the bureaucratic process of the IPCC probably means that the science is less effective than it might otherwise be, and that the communication of this science is less convincing than it could be, to the detriment of the quality of the public debates. As I mentioned in another comment it's quite painful to link to the IPCC report and they prevent people from redistributing it without permission, meaning the format is basically fixed in an unhelpful set of massive PDFs. Sad!)
- sctb 9y ago
  Please stop violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    Ok, I'm done. Please delete my account. Hacker News is comprised primarily of people who do not wish to discuss a variety of viewpoints freely. Any comment that strays from the "party line" is immediately downvoted, usually without response from anyone. The "silent hand" of disapproval shames into submission or obscurity. The ideological purity of the community is preserved at all costs--especially at the cost of intellectual diversity. I see comment after comment, ones that are completely reasonable and polite, downvoted into grayness because they disagree with the prevailing opinion. Instead of posting a reasonable, polite rebuttal--you know, furthering the pursuit of knowledge and understanding--people anonymously click the "I disapprove" button and censor opposing views. And you and dang don't do a thing about it. The people downvoting comments like that are completely abusing their downvote privilege, but it never stops. Then you revoke my upvoting privilege after I correctively upvote some unfairly downvoted comments. Apparently that's "working as intended" at Hacker News. Even Slashdot, as far a cry as it is now from its historical golden era, is a bastion of open-mindedness compared to HN. So why should I waste my time here? You want to have your echo chamber, well hey, it's your site. I can tell when I'm not wanted. And unlike many here, I would not force my views on anyone.
    - debaserab2 9y ago
      When you continuously argue against the basic merits of science in a forum based around science and technology you're probably not going to have a great time.