3 ms·

Fred, I still haven't seen that convincing, peer-reviewed source disproving global warming. Where is it? All of this anti-global warming stuff is just so anecdo

by rms 18y ago

Fred, I still haven't seen that convincing, peer-reviewed source disproving global warming. Where is it? All of this anti-global warming stuff is just so anecdotal compared to an overwhelming scientific establishment consensus. What makes you think you are right and that there is a vast conspiracy among the mainstream scientific community?

gibsonf1 18y ago
There is a growing body of research done by scientists on the role the Sun plays in global climate. Here's an example: "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf The answer, of course, is yes as there has never been an accurate computer model prediction of temperature using the manmade Co2 theory.
jgranby 18y ago
Anthropogenic global warming hasn't been "proved" either. And the agreement by peer review of however many climatologists, whose jobs also depend on global warming's acceptance, doesn't really lend it any credibility in my eyes. Of course one month is anecdotal, and you're right to say it is -- it undermines the anti-warming camp's credibility rather than helping it. But every year up until this one, any mention of the hot summers on the BBC (I live in the UK) was always attributed to global warming. So the pro-global warming guys don't hesitate to promote anecdotal evidence that favours them, too. The sooner both sides drop it, the better. My own opinion is that the 150 years or so that the global warming discussion centres on is insignificant looking at the bigger picture. Just look at the MWP, which happened on its own without fossil fuels, etc. Trends like the one that's happening now have always happened; there's always been warming and cooling. Add to that the ~15-year periods of cooling in the 50s and 90s, and I'm hardly convinced there's correlation with CO2 output, let alone causation. But even after that big rant, I still wish people would keep this stuff off HN. It doesn't belong here -- keep it to Reddit or wherever.

by rms 18y ago

gibsonf1 18y ago

There is a growing body of research done by scientists on the role the Sun plays in global climate. Here's an example: "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf The answer, of course, is yes as there has never been an accurate computer model prediction of temperature using the manmade Co2 theory.

jgranby 18y ago

Anthropogenic global warming hasn't been "proved" either. And the agreement by peer review of however many climatologists, whose jobs also depend on global warming's acceptance, doesn't really lend it any credibility in my eyes. Of course one month is anecdotal, and you're right to say it is -- it undermines the anti-warming camp's credibility rather than helping it. But every year up until this one, any mention of the hot summers on the BBC (I live in the UK) was always attributed to global warming. So the pro-global warming guys don't hesitate to promote anecdotal evidence that favours them, too. The sooner both sides drop it, the better. My own opinion is that the 150 years or so that the global warming discussion centres on is insignificant looking at the bigger picture. Just look at the MWP, which happened on its own without fossil fuels, etc. Trends like the one that's happening now have always happened; there's always been warming and cooling. Add to that the ~15-year periods of cooling in the 50s and 90s, and I'm hardly convinced there's correlation with CO2 output, let alone causation. But even after that big rant, I still wish people would keep this stuff off HN. It doesn't belong here -- keep it to Reddit or wherever.