I'm quite disappointed about so many "sceptics" on Hacker News . The term "sceptic" alone gives someone credibility, it sounds like someone is actively engaging in a scientific debate, but no "sceptic" is.
The basic scientific fact on which every other argument rests is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect greenhouse effect. This alone should end the argument for any sane person.You can replicate the effect in every lab with the same results. The calculation that we are having an effect is simple. The co2 measurements are absolutely clear, co2 is rising and is now on its highest level ever.
I don't understand what your argument is?
That correlation doesn't equal causation? You can prove the causation in every lab, just replicate John Tyndalls experiment from the 1850s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall.
I don't care if two models work or don't work, or if some scientist has doctored three numbers, it doesn't change the basic fact. The argument they are having is about the current speed of warming and I don't care about that, because it doesn't matter. It might well be that the planet is warming much slower because of some natural effect, now if this is the case we should all be happy...and start reducing greenhouse gases immediately. All we got is a chance to react, the basic scientific fact didn't go away.
why is this being voted down? simplistic models of complex systems are obviously a bad idea when the results involve spending billions of dollars that could otherwise directly save lives today.
climate is an enourmously complex system in the short run, but quite simple in the long run.
Yes you can still reduce all the arguments we are having to the greenhouse effect. You both didn't answer my post you side stepped the issue.
"simplistic models of complex systems are obviously a bad idea" this is not even an argument, it's just a weird theory, masked as common sense. But occams razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor doesn't ask for the most complex theory does it? why are the simplistic models bad if they work? It is also a common "sceptic" strategy to sidestep the core arguments and go back to talking about process (complex argument, bad emails, sceptics are not heard, global conspiracy...but no arguments none).
So what is your argument against the greenhouse effect?
That something will offset it? Or that it doesn't exist?
Or that there is no correlation between co2 and global temperature in the long run?
Explain, Argue stop running, if you care about the future of mankind you should at least accept the possibility that you are wrong. In that case you have to engage in a honest debate about the facts.
reductionism, ur doin it wrong. when we make simpler abstract models of complex systems it's because we have an axiomatic understanding of the complex system. you have to make sure all the complex variables cancel each other out* properly before you can ignore them and confidently state "this model accurately represents the underlying reality".
*this is a simplification obviously. lots of models involve not canceling out but other statistical techniques (like linearizing the relationship between two variables), which is part of what the climate debate is all about: are these simplifications valid? the reason "climategate" is a big deal is because it is evidence that no, no they are not.
Do you know that the same scientists that propose global warming now have said that there will be global cooling (in 1960s/1970s)? Oh, and BTW, its interesting that now they say it's "climate change" not "global warming", are they preparing to change what they are saying again?
I have no idea what ecologist have to do with it, but every climatologist is easily going to have a lenghty chat about climate variance and fluctuation with you.
Basically that's what climatologists study. Yes I know what the little ice age is, but I really can't see your point.
There is a lot of natural fluctuation, but that doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect. Just because the sun or vulanic activity cause a cooling effect in the short run doesn't change the basic fact of the greenhouse effect in the long run.
Your Link to the Vostok Ice Core Data should really make you scared just add 100ppmv to the co2 level and try to imagine the temperature.
Global cooling was never a widely accepted scientific theory, in fact the scientific consensus even back then was that global warming was going to happen in the future.
The basic scientific fact on which every other argument rests is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect greenhouse effect. This alone should end the argument for any sane person.You can replicate the effect in every lab with the same results. The calculation that we are having an effect is simple. The co2 measurements are absolutely clear, co2 is rising and is now on its highest level ever.
I don't understand what your argument is? That correlation doesn't equal causation? You can prove the causation in every lab, just replicate John Tyndalls experiment from the 1850s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall.
I don't care if two models work or don't work, or if some scientist has doctored three numbers, it doesn't change the basic fact. The argument they are having is about the current speed of warming and I don't care about that, because it doesn't matter. It might well be that the planet is warming much slower because of some natural effect, now if this is the case we should all be happy...and start reducing greenhouse gases immediately. All we got is a chance to react, the basic scientific fact didn't go away.