4 ms·

The climate has always been changing. That's the problem. We have been in a "long trend" global warming period for at least 20,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.

The climate has always been changing. That's the problem. We have been in a "long trend" global warming period for at least 20,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum Much of the world was under ice 20K years ago. And the earth has generally warmed since then and melted much of the ice ( with occasional refreezes ). And the "consensus" that human activity is responsible is utter nonsense. Feel free to research where the "consensus" came from. Also, whenever "science" relies on "consensus", you have to start wondering because real science doesn't rely on consensus - it relies on hypothesis and experimentation. The speed of light isn't derived from "consensus" but rather experiments. Science isn't politics, people don't vote for what the facts of science are. You talk of 30 years of consensus. Do you know what the consensus was before the consensus on global warming? We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. And before then we had decades of consensus of malthusian collapse. And before then consensus on social darwinism. Strange how all these "consensus" driven science has been debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense. We are in many millenia long global warming period. This trend started long before humans started using oil. Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water.

lm28469 7y ago
No one denies that the climate changed before and that it's a natural thing. The problem is that in 100 years we went from slow changes to 10 times the amplitudes ever recorded. The questions isn't "Do these cycles exist ?" it's "Are we sure we want to trigger one early ?" Greenhouse effect is a very well studied effect. CO2 / other gases level are a very well studied field. CO2/other gases dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. Are you also denying that ? When you study something you have to look at the settings in which it happens and look at the time frame. Sure changes happened 10k+ years ago, that's not invalidating anything related to our role in the current change. > Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water. You won't win anyone over with such nonsensical arguments. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-th... https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368 https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-00... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- anthuman 7y ago
  10 times the amplitudes ever recorded? Or are you just conveniently only looking at the past 150 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/File:Evolution_of_temperature_in_the_Post-Glacial_period_according_to_Greenland_ice_cores.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/Fi... And my argument of taking water from the seas causing the rise and fall of tides is just as laughable as the "climatecentral.org" nonsense that is pushed everywhere. And linking to agenda driven "climatecentral.org" propagandists won't win anyone over either. Neither will linking to a 2000 year climate range when I purposely talked about 20000 year climate range. The truth of the matter is that climate has change far more drastically in the past and will do so in the future. And the truth of the matter is that we don't know why climate changes drastically. Those who claim they know are simply liars and propagandists. Just like for much of human history, we had no idea that the moon was responsible for the rise and fall of tides. Maybe one day we will know - perhaps there are planetary reasons. Perhaps it is something internal to earth. Yes, the greenhouse effect is very well studied and it's pretty much been proven that it doesn't apply to climate change. Ever wonder why the propagandists don't talk about it much any longer? We can actually calculate the temperature of a greenhouse ( there are actual formulas for this ). When we modeled that to the earth, it predicted much higher temperatures than we have. How embarrassing. So the model doesn't work, otherwise, the problem would be solved. It's almost like the earth isn't a greenhouse. Whatever the forces causing climate change, I think we can safely say that natural forces are far more important than humans. Though that idea may bruise our egos a bit. The industry of climate fearmongering has more to do with politics/geopolitics than climate or science. We don't definitely know why we had a "little ice age" in the last millenia. We don't know why much of the ice in the northern hemisphere melted 10000+ years ago. We don't know why much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice ( parts of which was covered in ice 2 miles high ). We don't know the definitive cause of any of the climate shifts just in the last 20000 years. But you and your "consensus" makers are sure about climate change today. Right? Even though every climate model today fails. We don't have a definitive climate model. We don't know why any of the climate change happened in the past. Yet, you are absolutely sure of man-made climate change.
  - lm28469 7y ago
consp 7y ago
You are mistakenly conferring the correlation between long and short term trends I think. The reason for long term trends is (as far as I know) somewhat uncertain and might be having an effect, but the short term trend is mostly attributed to humans doing things and can be shown to massively correlate to events (like the industrial revolution in the UK, massive oil consumption etc). The consensuses you mention were in their time not a 'consensus' and dubious at best and already recognized by the contemporaries of the time. > This trend started long before humans started using oil Correct to a certain extend (see other post for sources), they started using (very broadly as greenhouse gas emissions concern) agriculture/herding first, wood, and coal. Oil as a source of greenhouse gasses is mainly 20th century thing.
adrianN 7y ago
At no point were more papers predicting cooling than warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
soulofmischief 7y ago
I'm always changing. But you could point to a moment before and after I hit puberty, or, on a long enough scale, the period during which I morphed from teenager to adult. This "the climate is always changing" was just classic anti-intellectual rhetoric spread in response to changing the name from "Global Warming" (Oh but the Earth isn't warming during winter!) to "Climate Change". Be careful. Don't let yourself be swayed by those who only wish to harm you.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. No we didn't. That is completely and utterly false.
josho 7y ago
Your comment seems completely rational but ignores that we have science refuting your opinion. Not only that, the research on this comes from different branches of science that all converge on the same conclusions. I suggest you do a little more reading on the topic. Storms of My GrandChildren is an easy place to start. And as always if you have a good source that disputes climate science I would really appreciate a reference.
- anthuman 7y ago
  "Storms of our Children"? Were you the same person recommending "2012 end of the world" books a decade ago? Also, "science" hasn't refuted anything I said. I'm the only one who linked to science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/File:Evolution_of_temperature_in_the_Post-Glacial_period_according_to_Greenland_ice_cores.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/Fi... That is a list of significant climate changes just in the last 20000 years ( a very short time period relatively speaking ). We don't know the definitive "why" of any of those natural shifts in climate. If you know why these climate changes occurred before humans started using fossil fuels, please let me know. And please let me know the percentages in temperature increase that nature is responsible for and humans are responsible for. I went into greater detail here if you are interested. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991130 My advice is not to read mass market "oh think of the children" rubbish like "Storms of our Children". Instead look at the facts and think for yourself. If you have a climate model that works, let me know. If you have any climate scientist who knows why climate shifted in the past, let me know. It's amazing how when it comes to "end of the world nonsense", people will believe anything without any real science behind it.
  - josho 7y ago
    The book is Storms of My Grandchildren, I mis-remembered the title. It's written by James Hansen a NASA scientist. So, don't dismiss it as mass market rubbish. The book does address each and every point that you've made in this discussion. I recommend you give it a read. Elsewhere you speak of the "propagandists". Who are these people? When I've dug into this I found 2 groups. Scientists that speak in dense terms and explain evidence. And people linked to industry funding that speak in generalizations and easily refuted science. I'm very curious to see who you consider a climate propagandist.
trophycase 7y ago
I urinate 5-6 times a day, but yesterday I went 60 times. But hey, it fluctuates by the day. Nothing to see here.

lm28469 7y ago

No one denies that the climate changed before and that it's a natural thing. The problem is that in 100 years we went from slow changes to 10 times the amplitudes ever recorded. The questions isn't "Do these cycles exist ?" it's "Are we sure we want to trigger one early ?" Greenhouse effect is a very well studied effect. CO2 / other gases level are a very well studied field. CO2/other gases dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. Are you also denying that ? When you study something you have to look at the settings in which it happens and look at the time frame. Sure changes happened 10k+ years ago, that's not invalidating anything related to our role in the current change. > Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water. You won't win anyone over with such nonsensical arguments. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-th... https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368 https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-00... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

anthuman 7y ago
10 times the amplitudes ever recorded? Or are you just conveniently only looking at the past 150 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/File:Evolution_of_temperature_in_the_Post-Glacial_period_according_to_Greenland_ice_cores.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/Fi... And my argument of taking water from the seas causing the rise and fall of tides is just as laughable as the "climatecentral.org" nonsense that is pushed everywhere. And linking to agenda driven "climatecentral.org" propagandists won't win anyone over either. Neither will linking to a 2000 year climate range when I purposely talked about 20000 year climate range. The truth of the matter is that climate has change far more drastically in the past and will do so in the future. And the truth of the matter is that we don't know why climate changes drastically. Those who claim they know are simply liars and propagandists. Just like for much of human history, we had no idea that the moon was responsible for the rise and fall of tides. Maybe one day we will know - perhaps there are planetary reasons. Perhaps it is something internal to earth. Yes, the greenhouse effect is very well studied and it's pretty much been proven that it doesn't apply to climate change. Ever wonder why the propagandists don't talk about it much any longer? We can actually calculate the temperature of a greenhouse ( there are actual formulas for this ). When we modeled that to the earth, it predicted much higher temperatures than we have. How embarrassing. So the model doesn't work, otherwise, the problem would be solved. It's almost like the earth isn't a greenhouse. Whatever the forces causing climate change, I think we can safely say that natural forces are far more important than humans. Though that idea may bruise our egos a bit. The industry of climate fearmongering has more to do with politics/geopolitics than climate or science. We don't definitely know why we had a "little ice age" in the last millenia. We don't know why much of the ice in the northern hemisphere melted 10000+ years ago. We don't know why much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice ( parts of which was covered in ice 2 miles high ). We don't know the definitive cause of any of the climate shifts just in the last 20000 years. But you and your "consensus" makers are sure about climate change today. Right? Even though every climate model today fails. We don't have a definitive climate model. We don't know why any of the climate change happened in the past. Yet, you are absolutely sure of man-made climate change.
- lm28469 7y ago

consp 7y ago

You are mistakenly conferring the correlation between long and short term trends I think. The reason for long term trends is (as far as I know) somewhat uncertain and might be having an effect, but the short term trend is mostly attributed to humans doing things and can be shown to massively correlate to events (like the industrial revolution in the UK, massive oil consumption etc). The consensuses you mention were in their time not a 'consensus' and dubious at best and already recognized by the contemporaries of the time. > This trend started long before humans started using oil Correct to a certain extend (see other post for sources), they started using (very broadly as greenhouse gas emissions concern) agriculture/herding first, wood, and coal. Oil as a source of greenhouse gasses is mainly 20th century thing.

adrianN 7y ago

At no point were more papers predicting cooling than warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

soulofmischief 7y ago

I'm always changing. But you could point to a moment before and after I hit puberty, or, on a long enough scale, the period during which I morphed from teenager to adult. This "the climate is always changing" was just classic anti-intellectual rhetoric spread in response to changing the name from "Global Warming" (Oh but the Earth isn't warming during winter!) to "Climate Change". Be careful. Don't let yourself be swayed by those who only wish to harm you.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. No we didn't. That is completely and utterly false.

josho 7y ago

Your comment seems completely rational but ignores that we have science refuting your opinion. Not only that, the research on this comes from different branches of science that all converge on the same conclusions. I suggest you do a little more reading on the topic. Storms of My GrandChildren is an easy place to start. And as always if you have a good source that disputes climate science I would really appreciate a reference.

anthuman 7y ago
"Storms of our Children"? Were you the same person recommending "2012 end of the world" books a decade ago? Also, "science" hasn't refuted anything I said. I'm the only one who linked to science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/File:Evolution_of_temperature_in_the_Post-Glacial_period_according_to_Greenland_ice_cores.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#/media/Fi... That is a list of significant climate changes just in the last 20000 years ( a very short time period relatively speaking ). We don't know the definitive "why" of any of those natural shifts in climate. If you know why these climate changes occurred before humans started using fossil fuels, please let me know. And please let me know the percentages in temperature increase that nature is responsible for and humans are responsible for. I went into greater detail here if you are interested. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991130 My advice is not to read mass market "oh think of the children" rubbish like "Storms of our Children". Instead look at the facts and think for yourself. If you have a climate model that works, let me know. If you have any climate scientist who knows why climate shifted in the past, let me know. It's amazing how when it comes to "end of the world nonsense", people will believe anything without any real science behind it.
- josho 7y ago
  The book is Storms of My Grandchildren, I mis-remembered the title. It's written by James Hansen a NASA scientist. So, don't dismiss it as mass market rubbish. The book does address each and every point that you've made in this discussion. I recommend you give it a read. Elsewhere you speak of the "propagandists". Who are these people? When I've dug into this I found 2 groups. Scientists that speak in dense terms and explain evidence. And people linked to industry funding that speak in generalizations and easily refuted science. I'm very curious to see who you consider a climate propagandist.

trophycase 7y ago

I urinate 5-6 times a day, but yesterday I went 60 times. But hey, it fluctuates by the day. Nothing to see here.