"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."
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.
>Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate.
Why do you want to debate instead of learn? Why not go read the IPCC report in which your questions are likely to be answered? Don't count on the lay interest of HN commentators, go read what the experts have to say directly. That's what that report is for.
>It's interesting that we had a major climate change before the industrial revolution and we still don't underestand completely how it happened.
We have a pretty good guess. Native Americans suddenly lost 95% of their population due to plagues introduced from Europe. They in turn stopped burning the forests of the Eastern US. The forests recovered, and pulled a huge amount of carbon out of the air. This caused an ice age.
I do learn. I learn by looking at all evidence and facts rather than just the ones that tell me what I want to hear. Even when it's been shown that evidence has been doctored (like during Climate gate and more recently with the temperature readings), it's just explained away to further write the narrative that man has caused Climate change and anybody that questions it is considered a kook. THIS ISN'T SCIENCE NO MATTER HOW MANY BLOGS AND WEBSITES SAY IT IS!!!!
The pope talked about it last week during his speech. He mentioned climate change, but he also mentioned that abortion is wrong (and hurting the environment) and that people that are transgender are against god.
Which part do you think the media picked up on?
The Left in the US has been demonizing religion for many years..especially the pope due to many anti-science beliefs. Now, because he happens to fit the narrative, he's talked about in those same communities like we should listen.
Since there isn't really any scientific basis for his opinion, it really makes me wonder about many of the other "studies" going around the Internet.
I've done research on many of the people that claim to be a 'Climate scientist' and most aren't even close.
"They in turn stopped burning the forests of the Eastern US. The forests recovered, and pulled a huge amount of carbon out of the air. This caused an ice age."
So there are other reasons why the climate changed.
Actually, all of the other comments to my post did it for me. I'm curious why seemingly intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by biased studies. Maybe it's the fire and brimstone articles.
Al gore knew this and is now a Billionaire because of it. He even tried to get the government to force entire industries to buy carbon credits from his companies. Nobody cared about this. Not even in the scientific community.
He was the one that championed the idea of "Global warming" and the scientific community followed it..even when he said foolish things like the science is "settled". I've heard this repeated over and over again. It's not..and if you say this, it's not science.
Even here on HN, anything said against him was down voted. If bullshit like this can be passed off as the truth, it again should make everyone question it.
How do you think the IPCC gets funded? Do you honestly think they would publish a report that bites the hand that feeds them? We need more independent studies.
If this were a big corporation funding a study on Climate change and it didn't fit the narrative, this is exactly what you would be saying.
When Money and Politics gets involved, the facts get muddied and hidden.
>The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments. Its secretariat is hosted by the WMO, in Geneva.
What interest do these organizations have in inaccurate science? How could they possibly be more neutral?
"What interest do these organizations have in inaccurate science? How could they possibly be more neutral?"
If climate change is not man-made, they will no longer get funded. It's just as biased as any big company doing the same research, but it's excused because it's somehow seen as more 'scientific'
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 can see through most of the political BS that people even here on HN can't seem to grasp. Why is that?
It isn't, you simply believe that it is; as the guy below said a clear case of Dunning Kruger, you are vastly overestimating your own intelligence. You've done nothing here but repeat plainly ignorant right wing propaganda that's not even smart enough to require disproving.
"Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others"
Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate. 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.