Hacker News Reader

Comment by netsharc | Hacker News Reader

You seem to be implying that this percentage is very low, so how could it be responsible for climate change?

You seem to be doing the opposite of your question, knowing the answer to the question and then concluding (without knowledge of how the whole system works) that since it's so low that it couldn't be responsible for drastic changes.

View on HN

Yes, the implication is there and I am happy to be shown why CO2 is so key when man-made contributions to that tiny amount is so small also

Aha... I like the confidence that "I'm right, all those climate scientists are swindlers", based on your knowledge that "0.04% is a very small number". True, you probably would not lose sleep after e.g. losing 0.04% of your investments, but I dare say, believing this translates to the area of climate change is an act of supreme ignorance.

As for the rest of your stance, I asked ChatGPT: https://chatgpt.com/share/6776fe8b-8bd0-800e-875f-bae617ccfd...

You appear to have created a straw man. Your prompt assumes I am a climate change denier, when it might have been better to have labelled me a man-made climate change skeptic. Not sure chatGPT is the way to go on this one as I'd imagine it will be weighted towards the consensus. There was once a consensus that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Anyway thanks for the link, I enjoyed it.

> Your prompt assumes I am a climate change denier, when it might have been better to have labelled me a man-made climate change skeptic

Duck me, as if that hair-splitting makes a huge difference. I dare say there's a 0.04% difference between the two.

You flaunt your superficial intellect but you're still ignorant as hell, using it to nitpick. Did you figure out the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Or is it yet again somebody's job to convince you? Oh noo the wind blew your fence down so you were denied the chance to be proven wrong, therefore you're still this smart and correct man? Whatever saves your ego, man.

If you think there is little difference between someone who does not believe the climate is changing and someone who can well believe it is (that's what the climate does), but isn't entirely convinced it's man-made there's not much I can do about that. Funnily enough AI returned the following on the Stefan-Boltzmann law: The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a fundamental physical law that helps explain Earth's energy balance, but it doesn't account for the greenhouse effect, which is a key part of the climate system Anyway, I was pleased to have this pointer, and intend to look more thoroughly in to this life/fence permitting. BTW, I do not think ad hominim attacks are the way to bring someone over to your way of thinking. Cheers.

Yeah, it's hard to get anyone who smugly think they know it all to realize that they're actually an idiot. I don't care about changing your viewpoint, for all I care, you stay you, so anyone who can see through that thin veneer can see they should stay away from a fool.

For future reference, it's spelled "ad hominem".

> I don't care about changing your viewpoint, for all I care, you stay you, so anyone who can see through that thin veneer can see they should stay away from a fool.

And yet you keep coming back with nothing but ad hominem (cheers spellcheck guy). Right, I'm gonna leave it there; it's been emotional. All the best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com