Comment by whatisthiseven | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatisthiseven | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This question has been thoroughly studied: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

Feel free to read the summary for policy makers: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

You can ask whatever questions you like. Those of us who aren't dismissive of climate science have been able to get answers like yours without problem.

Meanwhile, those of us who understand that it is very difficult to tease out natural from man-made warming are very skeptical of the increasing politicization of science.

We're coming out of an ice age after all; I see nothing in the current warming that points to an aberration from what could be natural, asides from the much hysteria about greenhouse gases.

Collect some data that shows that the current warming is nothing to be concerned about and publish a paper. You'll be famous.

Show me some evidence that suggests the current warming is something to be concerned about. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And AGW is an extraordinary claim.

The IPCC reports contain sources with the relevant evidence. Please refute those first before asking for more evidence.

so, I'll take that as a no then... Even the IPCC reports suggest that warming isn't as bad as many claim, even though it is overly confident on attributing the warming to humans.

Unfortunately, evidence is all too often what's lacking in any discussion of climate science, and faux scientists tossing away skepticism for politics.

What kind of evidence would convince you if the evidence provided by the IPCC doesn't? What do you expect random commenters on the Internet to do?

Ideally, random commenters on the internet would back up their claims with more digested evidence rather than linking to a multi-hundred page report that often doesn't say what people think it says.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com