Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by TrispusAttucks | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

TrispusAttucks

I have been worried about climate change my entire life. I doom scroll news stories that show the coming disaster.

Recently, I stumbled onto this video [1] and have trouble refuting the data and claims.

Any experts that can explain what am I missing and why is this guy wrong?

[1] https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU

View on HN

Pretty easy. A lot of the things asserted as facts in this video are actually just lies. So it doesn't add up.

One of the most indefatigable climate anti-contrarians is Andrew Dessler, climate scientist of Texas A&M University. You could read his book, or just his Twitter.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-De...

OK, so if it is that easy, show us where Heller is wrong instead of mentioning someone else who wrote a book. Heller's videos offer many individual facts which could - or could not, depending on who is right - be refuted by pointing at the correct [1] data. One of Heller's main claims which he keeps on coming back to is that it was a lot warmer in the '30s than it is now. This seems to be corroborated by the list of temperature extremes for the USA [2]. This point alone gives credence to Heller's accusation of climate alarmists making use of tailored views on climate data by only showing historical data which shows an upwards trend, hiding the fact that those data show a local maximum. Given that Heller has been at this for a long time I would expect someone to have taken his statements to task by showing where he is wrong. I have yet to come across a refutation like that but I've seen plenty of supposed refutations in the style of the one above using vague assertions of 'lies' and 'it does not add up'.

Show us, where is Heller lying and what does not add up? If you can point at someone who actually refutes Heller's claims that would suffice as well but make sure to point at the actual correct [1] data-backed refutation, don't just say someone wrote a book. Until such a time I will believe my own observations based on historical data which do not seem to indicate a climate 'emergency' but which do show climate change, no matter which part of history is studied.

[1] where 'correct' stands for 'actual', not 'corrected to fit a narrative'

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_tempe...

Your position is seriously that climate change chan't be all that serious because it was hot in the Dust Bowl? I feel that you may be beyond help on this topic.

Instead of cherry-picking that particular fact, I suggest you direct your temperature extreme studies to the world generally instead of just the continental U.S.

I notice that you did not answer my questions, instead going for an ad-hominem. This is not a sign of the strength of your ideological position, it is the type of reaction which can be expected when confronting religious dogma.

Instead of cherry-picking that single example I gave you could try to actually refute Heller's - and Schellenbergers's, and Lomborg's and many other's - position on the 'climate apocalypse'. Realise that the more ad-hominems you throw, the less chance you have of convincing sceptics of your position.

Because it fails to look at the big picture, and in pursuit of claiming scientists blindly cherry pick data, ends up... well, cherry picking data.

Being calm, deadpan, deep voiced or British seems to be equated to "smart" or "correct". Even the comments on that video are falling for it.

XKCD once again has a diagram for exactly this problem. Even focusing on just the last 100 years ignores the bigger picture.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

I guess the primary issue with the video is the focus on US data (which is less alarming) rather than global data. Also for the forest fire data, after the large burn of the early 1900s, there would be a reduction forest debris to act as fuel so you would anticipate smaller fires for at least a few hundred years.

Thanks for the XKCD reminder. I have used this in the past as a nice way to illustrate the cause for alarm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com