3 ms·

This is the organization pushing this "research": https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html I'll leave the hopefully sc

This is the organization pushing this "research": https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html I'll leave the hopefully scientifically literate crowd here to see how reputable they are. I skimmed the paper, it seems to be making a "there's no free lunch"/"renewables aren't magic free energy" so let's just keep using fossil fuels argument. None of the authors are economists, physicists, or climate scientists, yet they make assertions that are very much the domain of those experts. I expect better from the HN crowd.

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
Actually Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry/polymer physics, has has published many "Climate Science" articles, such as : - Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China - Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–2018): a comparison between climate models and observations - Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records - How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment And much more, see: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ
- jackdeansmith 6y ago
  He runs this website which claims that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics. Calling him anything more than a crank is extremely generous
  - FirstAuthor 6y ago
    Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing. Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinformation-why-were-vulnerable/ https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - FirstAuthor 6y ago
    This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN. Have you read the welcome page? "The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ... "What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago

Actually Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry/polymer physics, has has published many "Climate Science" articles, such as : - Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China - Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–2018): a comparison between climate models and observations - Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records - How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment And much more, see: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ

jackdeansmith 6y ago
He runs this website which claims that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics. Calling him anything more than a crank is extremely generous
- FirstAuthor 6y ago
  Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing. Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinformation-why-were-vulnerable/ https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- FirstAuthor 6y ago
  This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN. Have you read the welcome page? "The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ... "What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."