Comment by rick888 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rick888 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock."

All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. It's just as bad (can you show me proof that's not based on this falsified data?).

There is a lot of money in global warming. Al gore is not only invested in the carbon credit industry, but he is trying to get the US government to force businesses to purchase these carbon credits (the profits from these will go directly into his pocket). Nobody on the left seems to care about how unethical this is.

"Nigel's just automating away the drudgery."

No, Nigel doesn't actually want to defend his point. He would rather make fun of the "crackpots" because he arrogantly believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified.

Excuse me?

The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want.

You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please!

See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it correctly, it is impossible to disprove, even though the planet is getting colder, because it is based on fantasy models-- you can't disprove a model because it is just a model. And these models having never worked with previous data sets is well known but advocates don't care.)

You don't understand it correctly. Models are supposed to fit the evidence, otherwise they're incorrect. That's how science works. Say you've gathered evidence of the big bang. You create a model for it. Then, suddenly, for some reason observations and measurements of background radiation doesn't fit your model. If that is so, you'll have to either adjust your model as to fit the data, or throw it away and build a new model that fits the data.

Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it.

They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.

Are you saying that the projections for the future should fit the past? I'm sorry.

Are you saying, that a model which does not fit past data will somehow correctly predict the future?

If you're talking about climate models, then they fit the observed historical data pretty well. lzw is wrong on that point.

Nope.

I'm saying that the models should fit the past data. I think I misunderstood lzw. :)

The post I was responding to said that all global warming data is falsified. That's blatantly untrue and not even worthy of discussion.

> There is a lot of money in global warming.

Those poor, unprofitable energy companies must have trouble fighting all those overly-funded climatologists!

You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic.

Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.

>> If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock."

> All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified....

Thank you for proving my point so concisely.

really? I really have to explain this? You don't remember the breach of data, the emails, and all of the universities that came out and admit that all of their claims were based on the same data?

I figured everyone would know what I was talking about, but I guess some people don't pay attention to the news as closely as I do.

There are multiple sets of "data", in whatever sense you want to use it (prediction models and climate measurements), and I don't think you know which one you mean. They back each other up pretty well, anyway.

There may be a few billion dollars to be made by some investment banks and hedge funds in carbon trading, but keep in mind that as of today, three of the six largest companies by market cap are oil companies (ExxonMobil, PetroChina, Royal Dutch Shell), and another is a mining company with substantial interests in petroleum (BHP Billiton). These four companies alone add up to over a trillion dollars in market value.

Also, the profits from purchasing carbon credits do not go directly into Al Gore's pocket. I don't have any idea where anyone would get such a stupid idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com