Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarygliders | Hacker News Reader

Here goes for further downvotes...

The entire edifice of this "human caused climate change" hypothesis rests on the premise that carbon dioxide is /the/ control knob for this planet's temperature.

There is zero proof that this is true. Zero. So if I were you, I'd be very, very cautious before going ahead with capturing CO2, by any method.

It's way too early for this sort of thing. Vastly more research is required before taking a potentially disastrous decision to try to reduce the amount of CO2 - a gas which Earthly vegetation /needs/ in order to survive!

View on HN

Ugh, I shouldn't feed trolls...

1) AGM has hit the gold-standard of proof, it's not an open question at this point, and CO2 is the primary driver along with other GHG [1]

2) What exactly are the "potentially disastrous" consequences of going back to 300ppm, roughly where we were for 10k years?

[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperature...

Being called a troll for questioning a false premise amuses me no end.

Have you ever read any of the other side's information, or do you solely read Reuters and other "CO2 is the demon!" mainstream media sources?

Thanks for your comments. A bit of fresh air. Really, I don't think that demonizing CO2 is the objective. Demonizing oil and other petrochemicals seems more likely. I think we are in a CO2 drought -- we know the planet (including corals) had an explosion of life at the 700+ ppm CO2 level.

> Vastly more research

We've done a vast amount of research. You've dismissed it. How much more research should be done to convince you, personally?

I guess you're not old enough to have noticed the seasonal temperature changes in your lifetime.

Can you provide anything beyond conjecture that there is any merit to what you've stated? My understanding is that the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty well understood at this point.

I can only ask that you read some Stuff From The Other Side Of The Argument...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/ is a good start on that.

I'm already being downvoted on here - proof that there are a substantial number of HN users who have Made Up Their Minds on this, and simply do not want to even consider that they have been bamboozled by various interested parties. I realise that no one likes to either admit they've been fooled by someone/a group of people, or simply that their view of the world around them is simply wrong - still, no reason to use HN's downvoting as a weapon against those who would otherwise try to post a contrary view. Still, it's fascinating to be downvoted simply for offering a contrary opinion.

As an interesting but connected sidenote: I've noticed on here that numerous HN submissions which tend towards CO2 demonization get upvoted and are filled with the Convinced, whereas the various articles I have submitted which tend to question this either get zero attention or are downvoted to obliviion. Whatever, and so be it.

Hint: capitalizing things and tossing about assertions about behavior of HN readers the way you do significantly undermines your credibility. If you really want to advance the argument you are making in good faith, you need to adjust your approach.

The problems with fossil fuels go way beyond climate change. If you told me that everything is a myth and it was just some government conspiracy involving almost every country on earth it wouldn't change anything. Even at 0.30€/kWh a used Kia Soul EV (small SUV) would pay for itself in gas savings compared to my 40MPG car. If climate change turns out to be true it will just be a nice bonus on top of all the other benefits you get by switching away from fossil fuels and if it doesn't, then everything is fine. You just can't lose by betting against fossil fuels. You know what the best part is? You get to avoid fuel taxes! The German government budget will shrink by 10% if we go all EV so if you hate taxation then EVs are the way to go!

Link looks a lot of garbage cherry picking of individual bad or flawed actors and arguments as misleading rhetoric that fallaciously implies the underlying belief is incorrect... as per usual...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com