Hacker News Reader

Comment by nanna | Hacker News Reader

Nice example of 'correlation does not imply causation' and if you submit this kinda thing to me in my data analysis class I'll fail you.

View on HN

Makes me cringe a little bit when global warming presentations start out with a co2 vs global temperature chart. Especially if that forms the entire basis of the analytic part of the presentation. Because I know someone (most) is just thinking "correlation != causation" and dismissing the entire thing.

But in this example we know that there indeed is a correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature. Of course you cannot restrict your argument to that, but at some point you start with some axioms.

Yes; interesting that they never bring up the chart showing we’re at the peak of a natural 125,000 year temperature cycle.

Source? The long temperature graphs I've seen look quite irregular, rather than cyclical.

Here's the smoking gun graph he's hosting: http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG

This is what he's talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Here's a graph similar to his, hosted on German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovi%C4%87-Zyklen#/media/...

Nobody brings it up, because scientists don't believe the observed changes in temperatures are due to Milankovitch cycles, since global warming is happening on the order of decades and not millenia.

Here's NASA's take: https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovi...

Scaling the time axis sensibly will quickly reveal that the rising temperature and this cycle cannot explain the rise we see.

There are certainly overlapping effects, but the model would fail to predict temperatures.

> global warming is happening on the order of decades and not millenia

How do we know that temperatures inferred from ice-cores (or whatever) are not extremely smoothed due to natural phenomena? Can we really get resolution down to individual years such that they agree across different test sites and methods?

Well for one thing we don't have tens of thousands of years to wait for a natural ice age to counteract industrial warming that has happened within the past century or two.

But if you submit that to scientifical journal it will be published. ;)

It worked for Hitler's Mein Kampf by just changing a few words using "feminist" language, and even won some special recognition from the publishers.

> Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose wrote 20 articles that promoted deliberately absurd ideas or morally questionable acts and submitted them to various peer-reviewed journals. Although they had planned for the project to run until January 2019, the trio admitted to the hoax in October 2018 after journalists from The Wall Street Journal revealed that "Helen Wilson", the pseudonym used for their article published in Gender, Place & Culture, did not exist. By the time of the reveal, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] The first of these had won special recognition from the journal that published it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

> Mein Kampf and intersectional feminism aren’t usually lumped together in many people’s minds, but if linked with the right language and buzzwords, left-wing academic publications apparently will accept the combination as scholarship.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/3/grievance-st...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com