3 ms·

What are your primary sources for these statements, or are you just parroting what you've heard? Have you looked at any of the raw data?

EliRivers 7y ago
Can sealions not use google?
- beat 7y ago
  No, they want you to google it for them. It's part of the sealion code of conduct.
mikestew 7y ago
You might as well ask for the primary source of my assertion that Donald Trump is the sitting president of the United States. Ergo, the answer is "the front page of any major newspaper". Now that I've tripped the wire, please do go on about how that doesn't count.
- solarwind 7y ago
  So newspapers, which are not primary sources, and have a long history of parroting climate alarmism predictions that have never come true: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1175075616699355139 https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1175075616699355139
  - mikestew 7y ago
    Then why do you, and the links you post, insist on debunking newspaper articles? Seems like a classic straw man. Go debunk the primary sources.
lucb1e 7y ago
I do not believe that we can link to any sources that you have not yet already seen and disregarded. You'll just ignore them or find a different way to read plain English. Your time might be better spent finding a real conspiracy to uncover. If, of course, you really believe what you just said and are not just trolling to begin with in the hopes of wasting everyone's time. In case I am wrong and you truly believe this stuff, I took the time to at least disprove the source that looked most trustworthy to me in another conspiracy theory comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21084305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21084305
danShumway 7y ago
"Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" was published in the 1960s.[0] It aligns with current models.[1] If you don't want to read them, then in summary, describing the 2017 report (itself a followup to a similar 2014 report) Ars mentions: > If you’re wondering what could have changed since the last report in 2014, the new Assessment highlights a list of areas in which our understanding has improved. That includes the evaluation of the human contribution to individual extreme weather events, higher-resolution climate models producing better simulations of things like hurricanes, and studies of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica that have bumped the worst-case sea level rise estimates upward.[2] In other words, the conclusions are the same as they've always been, except we underestimated how bad things are going to be. There is no reputable scientific position to take that says climate change isn't happening or that it isn't human caused. Even Chevron accepts that conclusion at this point.[3] If you're claming that you know more than both >90% of the scientific community and the actual oil industry, then you are alone in that belief. [0]: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)... [1]: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ [2]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climat... [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jansan 7y ago
The only source that I could find immediately is this one: http://www.wettergeschichte-hessen.de/ http://www.wettergeschichte-hessen.de/ Entry 3508 talks about 35 degrees Celsius in May of 1892, which for Germany is freakin' hot. Another entry calls 31 degrees Celsius in June 1818 exceptionally hot, which I would not consider exceptional at all.

EliRivers 7y ago

Can sealions not use google?

beat 7y ago
No, they want you to google it for them. It's part of the sealion code of conduct.

mikestew 7y ago

You might as well ask for the primary source of my assertion that Donald Trump is the sitting president of the United States. Ergo, the answer is "the front page of any major newspaper". Now that I've tripped the wire, please do go on about how that doesn't count.

solarwind 7y ago
So newspapers, which are not primary sources, and have a long history of parroting climate alarmism predictions that have never come true: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1175075616699355139 https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1175075616699355139
- mikestew 7y ago
  Then why do you, and the links you post, insist on debunking newspaper articles? Seems like a classic straw man. Go debunk the primary sources.

lucb1e 7y ago

I do not believe that we can link to any sources that you have not yet already seen and disregarded. You'll just ignore them or find a different way to read plain English. Your time might be better spent finding a real conspiracy to uncover. If, of course, you really believe what you just said and are not just trolling to begin with in the hopes of wasting everyone's time. In case I am wrong and you truly believe this stuff, I took the time to at least disprove the source that looked most trustworthy to me in another conspiracy theory comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21084305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21084305

danShumway 7y ago

"Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" was published in the 1960s.[0] It aligns with current models.[1] If you don't want to read them, then in summary, describing the 2017 report (itself a followup to a similar 2014 report) Ars mentions: > If you’re wondering what could have changed since the last report in 2014, the new Assessment highlights a list of areas in which our understanding has improved. That includes the evaluation of the human contribution to individual extreme weather events, higher-resolution climate models producing better simulations of things like hurricanes, and studies of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica that have bumped the worst-case sea level rise estimates upward.[2] In other words, the conclusions are the same as they've always been, except we underestimated how bad things are going to be. There is no reputable scientific position to take that says climate change isn't happening or that it isn't human caused. Even Chevron accepts that conclusion at this point.[3] If you're claming that you know more than both >90% of the scientific community and the actual oil industry, then you are alone in that belief. [0]: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)... [1]: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ [2]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climat... [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jansan 7y ago

The only source that I could find immediately is this one: http://www.wettergeschichte-hessen.de/ http://www.wettergeschichte-hessen.de/ Entry 3508 talks about 35 degrees Celsius in May of 1892, which for Germany is freakin' hot. Another entry calls 31 degrees Celsius in June 1818 exceptionally hot, which I would not consider exceptional at all.