Hacker News Reader

Comment by andruby | Hacker News Reader

* citation needed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

The solar physicist community has the current most accurate climate models and they only crunch sun data and not C02 data in any way.

Those models show lowering temperatures as we now enter a maunder minimum. Those models will pan out or not in the next few years. Their claim is falsifiable.

A talk by a climate change denial lobbying group isn't going to convince anyone.

They are doing real science. Their models will be proven wrong or not. All the CO2 based climate models have already been proven wrong. Odd that you would be so against finding out the truth.

I look forward to reading their peer reviewed work then. Otherwise I'm going to take any organization with such an obvious conflict of interest with a giant grain of salt.

I have a model that says you’re a shill. It’d be weird if you contested that because my model is scientific.

If you have a falsifiable claim let's test it. Otherwise I win, you devolved to ad hominem attacks in the face of logic.

Test that you’re a shill...? Ok, let’s test it! Let’s see your name and list of corporations / interest groups sending you money.

That’s the best way to falsify this. It would be weird not to check this because it’s a scientific endeavor.

If you know of any groups that would actually pay me to point out fallacious logic I would love to know about them.

Ok ok. That’s enough for me.

Out of character now. Serious question.

Is it mind numbing or is it entertaining to vomit gross rhetoric to push out an agenda and piss people off? Genuinely curious because I feel like this would suck after a couple hours and especially on forums where you get more sincere bites.

https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-gia...

This is real science, we get to find out if they are right or not in the next couple years. It is rather weird to attack efforts at real science.

Their claim is not falsifiable. They’ve taken PCAs of magnetic waves. They might be right about their part, but this is seriously misleading deflection to say they’re right and others are wrong. Climate models are difficult. Defining accuracy is difficult. Thing is, models that can explain thousands of years of historical climate isn’t relevant, because it’s a different problem than predicting climate now. It’s changing at an unprecedented rate.

You can set up a greenhouse effect experiment and verify that carbon increases the temperature from the sun yourself. We don’t know many things, such as how much CO2 the ocean absorbs, but it really doesn’t matter. We know the globe is getting warmer, CO2 causes atmospheric temperature increases, and that we’re dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Their claim is absolutely falsifiable. They have made predictions based on the data. Those predictions will pan out or not, just like all the current CO2 models have failed. What is irrefutable is their models are currently the most accurate. This is real science, the answer will arrive, and even if it is wrong we learned something.

Nah man that’s doubt propagation.

Your citation is a Youtube video? How come people who argue against you can cite peer reviewed articles and a ~97-99% consensus among the scientific community?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com