Hacker News Reader

Comment by onlyrealcuzzo | Hacker News Reader

The world has been MUCH hotter than it is today since mammals have been around (for most of it): https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...

View on HN

I took a climate course or something in undergrad, and pretty much the only thing that stuck with me from that was technically we are still in an ice age? Since it is technically defined as when there is ice on the north and south poles. For millions (billions?) of years it alternates between there being ice and no ice.

I keep wondering if I misremembered since it's so different to the whole global waking narrative

> I keep wondering if I misremembered since it's so different to the whole global waking narrative

I don't see a problem with both being true: we can technically be in an "ice age" and still experience warming that would hurt us greatly in the future.

Yes but climate change narratives imply that we are the primary cause and must force change (even if harmful) to begin to even attempt to prevent some of these effects.

We are the primary cause of change happening at this rate - too fast for species to adapt.

Climate change has always happened too fast for species to adapt.

Exhibit A - dinosaurs.

We are the cause, that‘s not a narrative but concensus.

It's not a consensus...

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency...

That’s linking to a think tank website.

That doesn't automatically invalidate it.

Somewhere out there is a guy that doesn't believe in gravity either - to argue therefore that there's no consensus on gravity is silly.

Rate of change matters.

A car will naturally come to a stop if you don't push the accelerator pedal. A car will naturally come to a stop if you hit a brick wall.

What’s the counter-narrative? That the sudden, rapid temperature swing only coincidentally happened after the industrial revolution but were somehow going to happen anyway? That the greenhouse effect is a woke myth?

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Despite the common narrative to the contrary, there is no actual hard evidence of what degree humans have contributed to climate change and what will fix it. There are many theories and computer models, but no evidence.

The issue is that history has shown many of these models to be extremely inaccurate.

See below where it was predicted on ABC news in 2008 that the world would be doomed by 2015 (you know, 8 years ago)...none of that happened.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/...

So with the constant Chicken Little coming from the climate change alarmists, I think you can understand some people's skepticism on the matter.

https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/oped-global-warming-dish...

Measurements are evidence.

Evidence that climate change itself is occurring, but not of anything else.

> There are many theories and computer models, but no evidence.

Models and theories are what enabled us to develop all our technological progress. Before, there was random chance and tinkering. That changed when we started doing experiments and to model theories that fit the measurements. These theories made predictions which enabled us to see whether the model was actually valid. Data is worthless if you have no model to plug it in to make predictions from it.

Beside that there are desktop experiments that are so simple that you could almost do them at home that show that the ability of an atmosphere to capture heat is influenced by its carbon dioxide content. These experiments were done over a hundred years ago.

You seem very vocal about the topic. What are you trying to achieve?

Just some more reasonable discussion on the topic instead of the usual alarmism and hysteria.

> Despite the common narrative to the contrary, there is no actual hard evidence of what degree humans have contributed to climate change and what will fix it. There are many theories and computer models, but no evidence.

This is blatantly false.

Where is all this hard evidence? All I've ever seen are theories and computer models, many of which end up wrong. If I'm wrong, it should be easy for someone to provide the evidence.

JFGI, it should be easy for you to find unless you have a vested interest in avoiding it.

Gives us a starting point, please.

sure

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

So like I said, just theories and computer models.

That’s some pretty flimsy evidence to wreck the middle class financially.

We are the primary cause. To suggest otherwise is unscientific and contrary to empirical facts. You may as well say "round earth narratives imply that spheres are the shape that planets tend to be".

Yea people seem to miss the fact that our species development to what we have was fairly dependent on stable conditions within an ice age and that anything outside those specific conditions have never been conducive to any species achieving anything like we have....

But then that's probably because so many don't view humans as an animal species within the greater web and instead view humans as special, whether due to religion or just plain old supremacist ideology the result is the same.

Which isn't to say that all mammals and especially not that humans can therefore cope fine come what may.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com