4 ms·

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a techn

by ender7 12y ago

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or strange nitpicks at the perimeter of an article that seem bent on derailing discussion of the main point (i.e. DH4 at best [1]). If solid evidence is presented, it's usually dismissed with arguments like "this popular news article doesn't even say how exactly they computed <extremely complicated result>, therefor it must be bunk. There could be an error in there somewhere, so I shall assume there is one." Where does this animus spring from? [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

jstalin 12y ago
Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting." One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise. So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims. As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.
  - jstalin 12y ago
    Even the IPCC doesn't claim human-induced climate change until the 1950s. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere didn't seriously ramp up until after 1950.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Really? "It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...
  - GlobalChange 12y ago
    Well, I stopped dead reading the article right on the first paragraph. I really could not believe. Ice on water does not raise it a millimeter whatsoever. Once again it is just stupid media writing the next Apocalypse just to sell papers or whatever because really they have nothing better or more intelligent to do. Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea. On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever. Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!! So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility. CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will! All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder). Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.
IIJamesII 12y ago
Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right? For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating. I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science. And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common." Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?
- ender7 12y ago
  Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.
  - IIJamesII 12y ago
    Sure. The big example is "climate sensitivity". Basically the models assume the earth's climate will amplify any CO2 heating by an extra 3 - 4 times. Without that extra heat there is no catastrophe.
  - IIJamesII 12y ago
    The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude. Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-rutgers.png?w=600 https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-... Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism. When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure. Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think. It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags. Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.

by ender7 12y ago

jstalin 12y ago

Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting." One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise. So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims. As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.
- jstalin 12y ago
  Even the IPCC doesn't claim human-induced climate change until the 1950s. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere didn't seriously ramp up until after 1950.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Really? "It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...
- GlobalChange 12y ago
  Well, I stopped dead reading the article right on the first paragraph. I really could not believe. Ice on water does not raise it a millimeter whatsoever. Once again it is just stupid media writing the next Apocalypse just to sell papers or whatever because really they have nothing better or more intelligent to do. Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea. On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever. Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!! So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility. CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will! All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder). Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.

IIJamesII 12y ago

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right? For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating. I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science. And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common." Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?

ender7 12y ago
Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.
- IIJamesII 12y ago
  Sure. The big example is "climate sensitivity". Basically the models assume the earth's climate will amplify any CO2 heating by an extra 3 - 4 times. Without that extra heat there is no catastrophe.
- IIJamesII 12y ago
  The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude. Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-rutgers.png?w=600 https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-... Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism. When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure. Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think. It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags. Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.