I am impressed that you watched an hour long lecture in only 5 minutes.
I think if you're actually technically inclined, which as an HN reader, you probably are, that you'll understand and enjoy the lecture.
I think if you're actually technically inclined, which as an HN reader, you probably are, that you'll understand and enjoy the lecture.
It's pretty much identical to the evolution skeptics, or those who are skeptical of smoking causing cancer, or those who are skeptical of the Holocaust. There may be a few slightly technical bits bandied about as loin clothes to cover the naked bias, but a small amount of investigation exposes the fraud. The liars don't bother to address or even understand the science of climate change, they just pick at the edges and think that if they can discredit one side argument, it brings down the whole field. Science and reason do not work that way (politics do, quite often).
If any technical HN readers actually do want to learn about climate science, Ars Technical has been covering it quite well over the years at the level that a computer programmer can jump right into.
It's also interesting reading the comment threads there. There are the usual drive-by doubters, some determined and repetitive doubters, and even a few knowledgeable commenters that provide figures, links to papers, and solid arguments that completely demolish the doubters political games. It's also taught me quite a bit about how people attempt to deceive others and control conversations, which is a useful skill for dealing with politics in life and redirecting the political back to the practical.
IMO the only reason to post a video as a source for an argument is to be able to dismiss people who dispute the argument without wasting a bunch of time on the video first. Please post something we can read instead.
Lectures serve a valuable purpose to most of us. If you could just read your way to an engineering degree, that would be awesome, but somehow, it helps to have somebody talk you through things. Haven't you found that to be true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4
What I have not seen is a great video used to support an argument made online. I've seen plenty of "this is awesome, check it out" that panned out. I've not once seen "you are wrong, this video explains why" that did.
You're asking us to invest an hour in your argument based on nothing but your insistence that it's worth it. That's not at all the same as asking a student to invest an hour in a lecture for a class they signed up for as part of an ongoing educational effort involving lectures, books, and practical work.
Since I am not a scientist in the field of climate change, I do not feel the need to convince myself that scientific consensus is correct by examining the raw evidence myself -- in fact, I suspect that doing could only mislead and cause confusion, since I am not trained in how to analyze and interpret that sort of data. Therefore, I defer to the scientific consensus. The opinions espoused by a very small minority of climate scientists that disagree with that consensus do not trouble me, particularly when these scientists have been fired from multiple research institutions, since I cannot be sure they are operating in good faith.
People talk a lot about how oil money may be biasing the scientists who are skeptics. But you should know that there is a lot of money on the non-skeptic side as well. Carbon credit trading and carbon taxes are set to be huge money makers for governments and private institutions alike.
As you say, many climate skeptic scientists have been fired from their positions. That tends to make the rest of them stay pretty quiet, if they don't agree with the mob. As you can see by the responses to my posts here today, it really is a dangerous opinion for a scientist to put forth, so it's reasonable that many are silent.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura...
It's been in many many comments. It can be read in less than an hour, unlike your video. Why would anybody watch an hour video when the source makes egregious errors like this?
Also, why are you putting politics above science? Why are the politics more important than reality? Politics should be subservient to scientific truths, not the other way around. I suspect that that's why you keep on trying to deceive yourself and others on this matter.
While most of the commentors were obviously pro-AGW, seeking to pick flaws in whatever he said, even to the point of criticizing his use of 2005 figures instead of 2012 figures, it was refreshing to read people debate real science, rather than what generally happens. Thanks for the link.
The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM is taylor made for the highly technical level of the average HN reader. Why not watch it and see what all the fuss is about?
It's not a matter of close-mindedness, it's just that the general quality of arguments against climate change and the overwhelming data in support of it inherently reduces our expectations that any argument against it will be compelling or sensical, to the point that spending that time seems like a poor proposition.
He talks about experiments having to do with CO2 vs temperature, and how it is the CO2 that increases because of the higher temperatures.
There is also an in-depth mathematical treatment of CO2 absorption rates. As you know, CO2 does not just stay in the system forever. It is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various CO2 sinks. So knowing what the true CO2 absorption rate is, is important in knowing how big a problem you have. If you accept the premise that CO2 is bad, then having a slow absorption rate is worse than having a fast absorption rate.
You are trying to convince a crowd by forcing them to watch a massive video by somebody who is clearly untrustworthy. You yourself, by refusing to address the rebuttals, are displaying untrustworthy behaviour - you are attacking people for something you are yourself doing.
My dad was into all of this stuff for years, it's really disheartening that regular folks with no ties to the industry feel invested in their lies.