5 ms·

> I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. It's a great question, one which has occupied many scientists. It ha

> I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. It's a great question, one which has occupied many scientists. It has been addressed in detail in the scientific research. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 > The problem is that it's too political now. Remember that's a well-documented, established technique often used by people who want to obstruct things; create so much noise (as in signal-to-noise) and FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt) as to confuse the public about the facts. In every field, you always can find someone to say anything on TV; heck, you can find tax attorneys who will say you don't have to pay income tax (good luck with that!). > When claimed scientists are coming out and saying the science is "settled", I know we have a problem. Science is never really settled. 'Settled science' is jargon; it distinguishes theories that are still up in the air (string theory) from theories that have proven themselves as very reliable (gravity). Nothing in the world is ever "settled", but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change: IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans; the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?

paulhauggis 11y ago
"IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans" Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. "the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?" Well, if we are going to use this argument, we could very well think the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun. What about our treatment of women and minorities? Everyone did it, so it MUST be the correct behavior..right? How about smoking? Even Doctors promoted it at the time (they are experts, right?). Being homosexual and transgender was seen as a mental illness for decades. But all the experts agreed, so it must again be correct, right? I guess it is a mental illness!! The experts all agreed..I can't go against them.. Even more recently, "Hands up don't shoot". Forensic evidence came out and said that it never happened, yet we have mainstream media and seemingly intelligent people continuing on with the stretching of the truth to fit a narrative. "but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change" Yes, the climate is changing (a fact). But we still don't know if it's completely due to man-made changes or nature. You also left out government funding and the politics around academia, which is very important when it comes to studies. It's pretty well known in the academic world that if you don't support the current narrative, you will not get funding. I worked for many years in Academia and it's 99% politics if you want to actually get funding. If someone in a higher position doesn't like you for any reason, you can kiss it goodbye. Climate change (also known as Global warming and Global cooling depending on what the new narrative is for the day) has been talked about since the 1970s. None of the predictions by scientists at that time came even close to true and it was a majority..just like today. Science shouldn't be about trying to fit the evidence to a narrative. It should be trying to figure out the truth. If you can't even debate me on these simple questions, how can I ever believe what you are saying is true? Even the behavior here on HN is pretty telling. I ask a few questions and I am met with: hostility, anger, and people using words like "fucking". If it is this bad here, I can't imagine the climate scientists with contrary evidence. It's just like during the middle ages. Except they won't be burned at the stake, they will lose their careers.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  > Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming." Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age It's interesting that we had a major climate change before the industrial revolution and we still don't underestand completely how it happened. Maybe I'm just smarter than most climate scientists? After all the number fudging that has happened in the last few weeks (and during climate gate), I think it might just be the case.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > Maybe I'm just smarter than most climate scientists? You're really not, and your comments bear that out.
      - paulhauggis 11y ago
        I can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that? I am a little older and more experienced, that might be it. But I shouldn't really be that surprised from a community that willingly rallies around ideas that continues to subjugate them. It puts me about 10 steps ahead of the majority of people. I don't need your acceptance.
loganu 11y ago
It's become a politicized issue, and as such, the media has created a narrative of 2 sides and a "debate." Take the 97% and put it into a different context and it makes the situation seem absolutely ludicrous. If you had a sore stomach, and asked 2 groups of people to help you figure out why, would you trust the diagnosis from a group with 100 world-class doctors, surgeons, dieticians, etc... or 100 random people? When the random people say "Ya, but the doctor's don't know anything"... why would you believe them? We've got global consensus from the leading experts in a dozen or so related fields, all pointing to the same thing. I trust the people that landed on the moon and can launch satellites to space to give me better information about the Earth's macro trends than the guy next door that uses his bible and the cold weather last week as his evidence of a trend.
- Zuider 11y ago
  >If you had a sore stomach, and asked 2 groups of people to help you figure out why, would you trust the diagnosis from a group with 100 world-class doctors, surgeons, dieticians, etc... or 100 random people? Not unless two of those 100 random individuals were Barry Marshall and Robin Warren and the stomach pain was due to a peptic ulcer. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Marshall "Marshall and Robin Warren showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the cause of most peptic ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid." The point being that a reasonable belief long held by experts was shown to be false by careful scientific investigation. That said, I don't find this kind of meta-rhetoric helpful as it serves only to steer attention away from the pertinent matter at hand and to shut down discussion.
  - loganu 11y ago
    I get what you're saying, but Marshall was a doctor. He'd be in the 3% of the group of informed scientists that are working to figure out this scenario. My point is that the general public's opinion and perception of the issue shouldn't carry as much weight as the experts.
- scarmig 11y ago
webXL 11y ago
> IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans No, you didn't recall correctly. It's published papers taking a position on AGW and even that number is questionable at best: To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist. Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-wa...

paulhauggis 11y ago

"IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans" Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. "the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?" Well, if we are going to use this argument, we could very well think the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun. What about our treatment of women and minorities? Everyone did it, so it MUST be the correct behavior..right? How about smoking? Even Doctors promoted it at the time (they are experts, right?). Being homosexual and transgender was seen as a mental illness for decades. But all the experts agreed, so it must again be correct, right? I guess it is a mental illness!! The experts all agreed..I can't go against them.. Even more recently, "Hands up don't shoot". Forensic evidence came out and said that it never happened, yet we have mainstream media and seemingly intelligent people continuing on with the stretching of the truth to fit a narrative. "but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change" Yes, the climate is changing (a fact). But we still don't know if it's completely due to man-made changes or nature. You also left out government funding and the politics around academia, which is very important when it comes to studies. It's pretty well known in the academic world that if you don't support the current narrative, you will not get funding. I worked for many years in Academia and it's 99% politics if you want to actually get funding. If someone in a higher position doesn't like you for any reason, you can kiss it goodbye. Climate change (also known as Global warming and Global cooling depending on what the new narrative is for the day) has been talked about since the 1970s. None of the predictions by scientists at that time came even close to true and it was a majority..just like today. Science shouldn't be about trying to fit the evidence to a narrative. It should be trying to figure out the truth. If you can't even debate me on these simple questions, how can I ever believe what you are saying is true? Even the behavior here on HN is pretty telling. I ask a few questions and I am met with: hostility, anger, and people using words like "fucking". If it is this bad here, I can't imagine the climate scientists with contrary evidence. It's just like during the middle ages. Except they won't be burned at the stake, they will lose their careers.

Daishiman 11y ago
> Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth. Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming." Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age It's interesting that we had a major climate change before the industrial revolution and we still don't underestand completely how it happened. Maybe I'm just smarter than most climate scientists? After all the number fudging that has happened in the last few weeks (and during climate gate), I think it might just be the case.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > Maybe I'm just smarter than most climate scientists? You're really not, and your comments bear that out.
    - paulhauggis 11y ago
      I can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that? I am a little older and more experienced, that might be it. But I shouldn't really be that surprised from a community that willingly rallies around ideas that continues to subjugate them. It puts me about 10 steps ahead of the majority of people. I don't need your acceptance.

loganu 11y ago

It's become a politicized issue, and as such, the media has created a narrative of 2 sides and a "debate." Take the 97% and put it into a different context and it makes the situation seem absolutely ludicrous. If you had a sore stomach, and asked 2 groups of people to help you figure out why, would you trust the diagnosis from a group with 100 world-class doctors, surgeons, dieticians, etc... or 100 random people? When the random people say "Ya, but the doctor's don't know anything"... why would you believe them? We've got global consensus from the leading experts in a dozen or so related fields, all pointing to the same thing. I trust the people that landed on the moon and can launch satellites to space to give me better information about the Earth's macro trends than the guy next door that uses his bible and the cold weather last week as his evidence of a trend.

Zuider 11y ago
>If you had a sore stomach, and asked 2 groups of people to help you figure out why, would you trust the diagnosis from a group with 100 world-class doctors, surgeons, dieticians, etc... or 100 random people? Not unless two of those 100 random individuals were Barry Marshall and Robin Warren and the stomach pain was due to a peptic ulcer. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Marshall "Marshall and Robin Warren showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the cause of most peptic ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid." The point being that a reasonable belief long held by experts was shown to be false by careful scientific investigation. That said, I don't find this kind of meta-rhetoric helpful as it serves only to steer attention away from the pertinent matter at hand and to shut down discussion.
- loganu 11y ago
  I get what you're saying, but Marshall was a doctor. He'd be in the 3% of the group of informed scientists that are working to figure out this scenario. My point is that the general public's opinion and perception of the issue shouldn't carry as much weight as the experts.
scarmig 11y ago

webXL 11y ago

> IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans No, you didn't recall correctly. It's published papers taking a position on AGW and even that number is questionable at best: To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist. Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-wa...