7 ms·
There are some wonderfully artful images in this post but it is woefully short of evidence of anything. The 2010 image of the east Kenyan person in water by And
by olivermarks 7y ago
There are some wonderfully artful images in this post but it is woefully short of evidence of anything. The 2010 image of the east Kenyan person in water by Andrew McConnell/Panos looks staged to me. There are endless articles with 'could' and 'may' in them which are making people very anxious.
I'm all for good stewardship of the planet but am old enough to recall when we were all doomed to soon freeze to death last century
https://youtu.be/mOC7ePWCHGk https://youtu.be/mOC7ePWCHGk
- LocalPCGuy 7y agoThere is plenty of evidence, but I agree that this article specifically doesn't make a very good evidence backed argument. I also didn't find the pictures particularly emotionally poignant where they might move people to action researching the problems being described. Unfortunately, articles like this often hurt rather than help, IMO.
- throwaway5752 7y agoHow many times we we all have to see the Times cover and this History Channel pop science piece. 99% of climatologist agree on the science and the effects of warming are plainly visible to the layman.
- olivermarks 7y agoHave the courage of your convictions and don't use throwaways to lay down the law with your opinion please?
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoThe account is 6yr old. I'd wager it's not exactly a throwaway at this point.
- olivermarks 7y agofair point
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sachdevap 7y agoHave the courage of your convictions to argue the facts and not the account name maybe? This is a new kind of ad hominem attack.
- sigzero 7y ago"99% of climatologist agree" That is a false statistic.
- sachdevap 7y agoThere might be a slight bit of exaggeration, but 97% is not that far from 99, for this purpose.[0] [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
- kortilla 7y ago>99% of climatologist agree on the science This is not a compelling argument for a skeptic. >99% of all numerologists agree on the science You need to highlight the backing by the rest of the scientific community to give confidence that it’s a real science.
- beat 7y agoWhen 99% of the experts in the field agree, and that's not a compelling argument to a layman with no expertise, "skeptic" is not a word I'd use to describe that layman.
- sachdevap 7y agoVery much this. Ugh, so much ignorance in the name of "skepticism" in this thread!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kortilla 7y agoDid you take more than two seconds to think that through? If that was a compelling argument, everyone would believe in numerology because everyone that calls themselves a numerologist agrees that numerology is real. Same for psychics, priests, and on and on.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoDoesn't that then stand that you need to qualify the backing of the rest of the scientific community, then qualify the backing of those backing the backing, then qualify the backing of those who are doing the back of the backing of the backing? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof decreases as the claims become less extraordinary. I'd suggest "a whole line of science which until this point hasn't been controversial" can probably be trusted, and that immediately choosing to disregard a group when it says something you don't like strikes as more reactionary than skeptical. I very much doubt you considered all of climate science a hack science until it started to butt up against your personal beliefs.
- aeouaoea123123 7y ago99% agree on the data in the WGI of the ARs because those are real scientific data. However, the interpretation published in the WGIII of each AR are decided by politicians and are known to take liberties with the factual data in WGI, which is why 32k scientists signed "Climate Change Reconsidered".
- Fezzik 7y agoI truly do not mean to be flippant - but don’t the words under the photos provide all the necessary context? Right under the Kenyan photo, which could be staged, the article says “The ensuing floods displaced 76,000 people and left nearly 100 dead. Kenya experienced more lethal floods last year.” This particular Nature article gives a brief overview of a number of the consequences of global warming accompanied by photographs. Every article can’t be everything all at once.
- kortilla 7y agoAnd Kenya wasn’t plagued by floods 100 years ago?
- m0zg 7y agoThere's another pop sci argument I hear very often: Bad weather event: see, that's undeniably the effect of global warming, we're all gonna die by 2030. Climate improves: climate change is not weather, you can't judge by short term effects.
- hsdflsdhjs 7y agoThis is precisely what they do. In addition, if you don't believe their hocus-pocus, then you're a "climate denier", whatever that's supposed to mean. TBH I don't know what this post is doing on HN anyways. I like to browse HN for technical news, not this kind of stuff.
- wtdata 7y agoI am also old enough to remember how the Ozone Layer would doom us all and that even if we stopped all CFC emission immediately, it would still take 4 centuries to recover. Reality: Even with China still misbehaving about CFCs emissions, the Ozone Layer already recovered quite a bit and it's set to be fully healed by 2060. But well, on the bright side, at least that time, ALL nations comited to stop using CFCs. This time, the idea is: stop all emissions in the western world, and allow Asia to keep increasing theirs.
- ngold 7y agoI was born in 79, I remember the ozone crisis, in Silicon Valley elementary school we were taught about the massive drought and how to conserve water. But what are you on about with the world freezing. That's new to me.
- lliamander 7y agoHere's a collection of quotes from major news publications over the past 100 years related to climate change: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.ht...
- Isamu 7y ago>what are you on about with the world freezing. That's new to me. Well, because this was a thing in the 70's, so before you were born. I remember the headlines in pop-sci magazines were screaming about "the coming ice age" and artists depictions of glaciers in New York, Chicago, etc. It doesn't invalidate the current climate science, but plenty of people remember that old sensationalism.
- gnaritas 7y agoThose were fringe theories, not mainstream ones like global warming; the comparison is simply bad.
- primroot 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling "Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect." I would describe it a sample of irrelevant pop science noise from the past, that AGW deniers like to mindlessly compare to the current well established theory of AGW.
- 7y ago
- sp332 7y agoAt least some of that science was funded by Exxon after their own scientists predicted global warming. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWe were not all doomed to freeze to death in a new ice age. I think there were a couple of news pieces about it in the late seventies here in the UK. I even bought one of the shitty conspiracy paperbacks about it in 1980-something. Just as I bought Erich von Däniken's hilarious Chariot of the Gods proving the pyramids were built by aliens. On the other hand there were dozens and dozens of news reports, over a lengthy period, about acid rain, climate and ozone in the early and mid eighties. The world bothered to do something about two. We hear far less of those two and the Millennium Bug these days. Which is taken as proof nowadays that they were never a problem in the first place. Errr...
- olivermarks 7y agohttps://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/10/8/anatomy-of-an-environmental-scare https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/10/8/anatomy-o...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoOh c'mon. We mandated the use of sulphur scrubbers on power stations, and catalytic converters on vehicles. Which is not the same as "just fading away". Edit: 1985 Helsinki Protocol (UK and USA conspicuously absent), and superceded by the 1988 NOx Protocol that includes UK and USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_Oxide_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_Oxide_Protocol
- olivermarks 7y agosee lliamander's citations on this thread
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoNo one (I hope), disputes there were published papers and news reports of those papers on cooling, but it was not the consensus. It wasn't frequent. Those citations above point to a handful of reports. At the same time there were also reports of heating, which were more frequent. Though there weren't exactly loads of those yet either. Now, there were certainly one or two that blew it up, e.g. the remaindered paperback I picked up for 50p or something round about 1980. I'm pretty sure BBC's Horizon never touched it, though they did do the odd "out there" programme each series. They did one myth-busting von Däniken's silliness sometime in the early or mid 70s.
- cdelsolar 7y agoReally? are you 300 years old? Because global warming has been a rapidly increasing problem since the Industrial Revolution.