3 ms·

I think you've answered the question for the wrong side. Climatology is an incredibly complex field and working out what the climate is requires multivariate m

by brc 17y ago

I think you've answered the question for the wrong side. Climatology is an incredibly complex field and working out what the climate is requires multivariate modelling in order to try and work out what has happened and what will happen. However, to try and simplify the theory for the man on the street, the AGW theory proponents have watered down the complexities to one villain : CO2. They are saying that, despite the complexities, despite the many variables, an increase in one of the least significant greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic (the word is everywhere - cue the screaming girl) warming. The rational thinkers don't think the field of climate science is a hoax or conspiracy. What they think is that a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it. A hoax implies forethought and planning. The reality is that they are caught up in the populuarity of the theory and the fame and fortune that it brings, and so are (probably) indulging in a good old 'us and them' groupthink session.

jbooth 17y ago
"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" That is in fact the definition of a hoax. Tell you what. Why don't you publish your competing theory which explains global warming in a more convincing fashion. You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right? BTW -- the theory of evolution has poor explanations for several things in the natural kingdom. Does that mean it's a fraud, being perpetuated by a small group of scientists who are keeping a lid on more plausible explanations? EDIT: Downrated? So, in response to an article talking about how people shut down their brains and respond emotionally, you start downrating people you disagree with rather than responding intellectually?
- brc 17y ago
  "a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a plan to deceive others, and know they are lying the whole time. It's different to when people fervently believe in something and get involved in groupthink, ignoring dissenting opinions and developing an 'us and them' mindset. "You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right?" No, I don't. But then I'm not asking anyone to give me their money, either. The Earths climate has always been changing, and the causes have never been fully understood. Why did the medieval warming period occur? Why the little ice age after that? It's not up to sceptics of a theory to provide a competing theory that's better. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory to prove it is true. Something many people believe has not yet been achieved with the AGW theory.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    The scientists aren't asking for anyone's money, either. They're simply giving their best forecast. Here's the thing, (and mind you 95% of the people who've studied this for longer than 5 minutes on cable news commercial breaks agree on it), the carbon theory makes sense and there's a lot of correlation. If they're wrong, then all we'll have done is get off of fossil fuels, which we have to do anyways, and leave cleaner air for our children. If you're wrong? I mean, do you buy homeowner's insurance or flood insurance? Why not earth insurance? Lastly, to revisit the original point, regarding groupthink and dissenting opinions -- if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation. The earth is definitely warming, ice is definitely melting, and atmospheric CO2 definitely causes at least ocean acidification which is massively disruptive itself. That's just basic chemistry. It also seems to be the most likely candidate for the cause of global warming, based on what we know. So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer.
    - doulaimi 17y ago
    - brc 17y ago
      I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer." No, of course not. None of my posts indicate a dislike for clean renewable energy. I am an enthusiast of electric cars, passionate about ocean pollution, believer in locally based sustainability. It would be my ideal to have a self sufficient home with no fossil fuels providing energy. Hopefully I'll see that in my lifetime. However, I stop at correlation=causation, I distrust any non-testable computer models intensely (be they of the economic or climatic type) I'm also dubious about the 2% - it's also based on computer modelling and government forecasts, none of which I place the slightest faith in. The scientists are asking for peoples money - that's the whole point. Directly through more research grants and funding. Indirectly by asking for wealth transfers from people. "if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation." I completely reject that statement. I don't have to have an alternative view on any theory. Any theory on anything is completely rejectable without coming up with an alternative. It's perfectly logical to say "I don't have a better explanation, but you've failed to convince me".

by brc 17y ago

jbooth 17y ago

"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" That is in fact the definition of a hoax. Tell you what. Why don't you publish your competing theory which explains global warming in a more convincing fashion. You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right? BTW -- the theory of evolution has poor explanations for several things in the natural kingdom. Does that mean it's a fraud, being perpetuated by a small group of scientists who are keeping a lid on more plausible explanations? EDIT: Downrated? So, in response to an article talking about how people shut down their brains and respond emotionally, you start downrating people you disagree with rather than responding intellectually?

brc 17y ago
"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a plan to deceive others, and know they are lying the whole time. It's different to when people fervently believe in something and get involved in groupthink, ignoring dissenting opinions and developing an 'us and them' mindset. "You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right?" No, I don't. But then I'm not asking anyone to give me their money, either. The Earths climate has always been changing, and the causes have never been fully understood. Why did the medieval warming period occur? Why the little ice age after that? It's not up to sceptics of a theory to provide a competing theory that's better. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory to prove it is true. Something many people believe has not yet been achieved with the AGW theory.
- jbooth 17y ago
  The scientists aren't asking for anyone's money, either. They're simply giving their best forecast. Here's the thing, (and mind you 95% of the people who've studied this for longer than 5 minutes on cable news commercial breaks agree on it), the carbon theory makes sense and there's a lot of correlation. If they're wrong, then all we'll have done is get off of fossil fuels, which we have to do anyways, and leave cleaner air for our children. If you're wrong? I mean, do you buy homeowner's insurance or flood insurance? Why not earth insurance? Lastly, to revisit the original point, regarding groupthink and dissenting opinions -- if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation. The earth is definitely warming, ice is definitely melting, and atmospheric CO2 definitely causes at least ocean acidification which is massively disruptive itself. That's just basic chemistry. It also seems to be the most likely candidate for the cause of global warming, based on what we know. So why are you so invested in making sure we don't act on it? If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer.
  - doulaimi 17y ago
  - brc 17y ago
    I don't recall ever downrating a comment or a story in HN. If someone is downrating your comments, it's not me. "If we already had clean energy, hypothetically.. would you be willing to take on all of the risks of global warming in order to be 2% richer? Honest answer." No, of course not. None of my posts indicate a dislike for clean renewable energy. I am an enthusiast of electric cars, passionate about ocean pollution, believer in locally based sustainability. It would be my ideal to have a self sufficient home with no fossil fuels providing energy. Hopefully I'll see that in my lifetime. However, I stop at correlation=causation, I distrust any non-testable computer models intensely (be they of the economic or climatic type) I'm also dubious about the 2% - it's also based on computer modelling and government forecasts, none of which I place the slightest faith in. The scientists are asking for peoples money - that's the whole point. Directly through more research grants and funding. Indirectly by asking for wealth transfers from people. "if you don't have an alternative model that makes more sense, you don't have a dissenting opinion. You're just getting sucked into the politics of the situation." I completely reject that statement. I don't have to have an alternative view on any theory. Any theory on anything is completely rejectable without coming up with an alternative. It's perfectly logical to say "I don't have a better explanation, but you've failed to convince me".