If you go back a few million, that's also climate. We're still in an ice age.
https://www.climate.gov/media/16817
It will not be possible to keep things going they are, no matter what actions or inactions we need or should take.
Things will not stay the same anymore than they could when people found oil.
And it's not just coal of course. Coal was the proverbial canary in the proverbial coal mine because it was supposed to have been killed off long ago. But there's gas and petroleum and we are a decade from global peak carbon even by presumably the same kind of wildly optimistic / flawed projections.
And just passing peak carbon is not the goal. 1990 level carbon emissions were considered catastrophic and we're nearly double that now. Getting it down to well below those levels is just so uncertain and such a long way out that nobody really knows what that will take or how long it will be.
Making solar panels in Chinese coal powered factories doesn't just magically fix everything. Just like it didn't 25 years ago when they said it had killed coal.
Why was coal going to be phased out ages ago?
I remember a global scramble by some of the best minds on the planet to drive the cost of solar below the cost of coal because that was the only way they saw coal being displaced.
Like Google's Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal, or RE<C. Launched in 2007, or the US government's DoE Sunshot initiative in 2011 to reduce the cost of solar by 75%
What do you remember from your parallel timeline?
New solar doesn't reduce CO2 emissions if it isn't even covering increasing demand.
It covered 75% in 2025. And wind the rest, also still growing.
We could have got there faster, but there was, and is, a long running disinformation campaign to deny there was a problem, question the root causes of the problem and demonise the most promising solutions.
So it took solar that long to take the easiest 8% of global electricity generation share. The long-dead coal is somehow still far a larger producer of electricity. 4x bigger than total solar capacity.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/04/india-coal-power-heatwave-ln...
"Coal-fired power generation in India in April increased to 164.9 average gigawatts, compared with 160.7 average gigawatts last year, according to data shared by S&P Global Energy. According to the data, coal-fired power generation rose sequentially by 5.6 average gigawatts, or 3.5%, in April."
Yikes.
That's saying that since the continents and earth's currents haven't changed, we're in the same age, AMOC is a minor technicality, and the oceans would need to rise to the straight of Panama to be significant.
Plate tectonics for example shows you can’t even assume an area’s latitude is consistent, just look at the fossil history of Antarctica. Humans have dumped so much carbon and methane in the atmosphere even 100 years ago was quite different.
This could be a case of trying to make a climate argument, when the underlying data is more nuanced. Maybe we should just say it's nice the trees are blooming earlier.
- The climate has *always* changed. It’s been warmer. And yes, it’s been cooler. There is nothing abnormal about the climate changing.
- There is actually very little scientific proof that the current up tick, is human-made. Yes, there’s correlation with the Industrial Revolution, but that’s all it is atm, correlation. There’s little verifiable proof. It’s speculative. It’s a theory. Yes, there’s overwhelming consensus, but that’s still doesn’t make it fact. And consensus has been off target plenty of times in the past.
- “The science” isn’t always as fact / truth based as it would like us to believe. Scientists are human too. Egos, career aspirations, groupthink, jealousy, etc. The scientific method is a stunning standard. Unfortunately, it’s implemented / executed by humans, flawed humans.
There’s three sources exemplify #3, of course there are others.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-has-there-been-so-littl...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosau...
https://longevity.stanford.edu/how-the-sugar-industry-shifte...
So pair that with the correlation with the Industrial Revolution/increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and with the verifiable scientific fact that carbon dioxide works to trap heat...and surely you can at least see why there's overwhelming consensus, right? What would compel you to operate as though this isn't the most likely explanation for the unprecedented rate of warming we're seeing?
As such, it always strikes me as bizarre when people question human contribution to climate change without by extension freaking out far more about the urgency of taking drastic action.
Many countries are taking steps which are mitigated by many developing countries who rely on cheap energy to grow and build out of their third world status.
So yes, on the one hand a lot of countries are doing something but will it ever be enough to counter other countries continuing to pollute at unprecedented levels? I don't know.
I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.
As some others have asked you, would you be so kind as to please suggest other sources for either the required energy inputs, or the required reduction in heat losses, so as to provide other plausable explanations for the available data?
We agree that corelation is not causation. I suppose we should also agree that ignoring a correlation when choosing what to investigate would not be science.
You responded by insisting (without evidence) that "the climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate". And now here you are telling someone else to "look at the climate record", the climate record that shows precisely what they're saying, the very same climate record you cast dispersions on moments ago, hoping to somehow trick them into not believing their own lying eyes. You're not operating in good faith.
So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.
I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.
- Climate models are demonstrably incorrect, but the current consensus is that it is changing faster than expected
- if the climate models are demonstrably incorrect, how much weight should we really put into it for understanding our impact on the model?
- if cherry blossoms blooming earlier are an input into the climate and this is a surprise that is not modeled, how much are we missing in our model? do you know how insane it is to try and model secondary/tertiary effects. Climate change is not an independent variable, it is in fact also recursive, therefore any input we are missing (and we are demonstrably missing many) fans out in our model and makes it inaccurate in either direction
- take for example what was being discussed in 2023 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001680
- as a comparison to what we think we know now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02598-w - if we can't even get this right, what do you think our chances of understanding the implications of the impact to everything indirectly dependent on phytoplankton?
- to what end? everything we do affects the climate. we aren't just changing the climate, we *are* the climate. there have been many species that were so effective that they meaningfully changed the environment and climate and eliminated other species or themselves along the way. should we eliminate them too? do we actually understand what we are doing if we do that?
the presumption that we are changing the climate in a way that makes it unsuitable for humans has not been demonstrated thoroughly. we can see that because population is still increasing, but therein lies the paradox.
if the model is demonstrably wrong and if it were trivial to correct and understand what was wrong about it then we'd have an accurate model by now, but we don't. after all your premise that ~100 years of observation is enough to say anything, how come we can't get the model right? If you follow this far out enough it also says we have no idea how to reverse the trend. if we did our model would not still be wrong in 2026.
the climate and life on earth is changing, will always change, there will be winners and losers, while we try to change it so that we are the winners, we have more evidence that it's an inherent property of the system and that life will continue on despite change than evidence that pre-industrial climate was the ideal climate that we should strive towards. If you want to argue that we should strive towards an environment where humans have the most success, well the evidence points to the fact that we are currently in that climate. population is increasing. just know that there are many losers in the climate you wish to promote. also know that ANY climate has a lot of losers. that much has been clear.
Some reports are already saying that global warming is progressing faster than predicted... maybe we're on an exponential slope to higher temperatures and don't know it yet.
As for the “never ever”, that’s another assumption. The climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate.
Of course, there is a fair amount of correlation and circumstantial evidence, but parroting that as absolute fact and causation does make it scientific. There is a lot of “telephone” on this issue. Those using hundreds of years or even thousands should be met with skepticism.
To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole of proof is not that deep. Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”
You mean those who have dedicated their careers to learning the science and studying the various evidence and using that as a base of reference?
Who would you cite otherwise?
Those providing the alternate view to "the experts" all seem to be seriously lacking in any related qualifications. Politicians, radio personalities, fossil fuel industry lobbyists, marketers, advertising executives. They're all pundits, they're not experts, they literally don't know what they're talking about.
If you believe everything, or even most things, those various groups tell you, well, I'm not sure how to help.
The most important Science [1] in the history of Science and history of The World… is no science at all. It’s consensus. Nothing more.
Let that ^^^ sink in.
I might consent, as a matter of caution. But I do so reluctantly and with skepticism. Most importantly, I’m not fooling myself and thinking I’m believing in something that is. Not. There. That is, Science. I’m not mindlessly parroting a narrative [2] - like a bad version of kindergarten telephone - because I’m afraid of asking obvious, worthy, and intelligent questions. I’m not a victim of my biases.
We’re done here.
1 - Please note, the upper case S.
2 - Examples given, there are others.
Read the articles in my Original comment.
Add this (book) to the list:
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/05/children-pandemic-vi...
You said all you said and yet didn’t site anything. How is that? But this is exactly the problem. People take a position, bias kicks in. They double down. More bias. There’s no turning back.
Thank you. You’ve proven my point.
Why do you think “the experts” are any different? They’re likely worse, as they have more to lose.
Ah of course, because the 'experts' are tainted by 'groupthink' any 'rebuttal' made by armchair internet warriors must therefore be absolutely true.
Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.
This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.
Can you give any thorough scientific evidence as to why we should consider this unprecedentedly fast change normal?
Did anything I said imply that I didn't recognize that? There's no need for you to clarify, I was very clear myself that I was responding to your lack of understanding about the nature of the changing climate.
The XKCD comic I already linked shows you the climate record for the past 22000 years; you can see with your own eyes that the rate of change since we began burning hydrocarbons on an industrial scale, particularly since the year 2000, has been precipitous and looks like nothing that's happened in the entire history of humanity as depicted. Maybe you missed it - it's a little subtle - but the comic already lists its sources on the side. At a high level, they determine the climate record by examining things like tree rings and ice cores; if you're curious, those sources are happy to explain their methodology in detail. Beyond that, do you have a specific reason for casting doubt on those sources?
So let's see - going back to my comment, I pointed out the climate appears to be warming up faster than ever before; I (well, XKCD) has given you sources for that. You yourself acknowledged that there was a correlation between the warming climate and the Industrial Revolution, but I suppose we need a source for the correlated rise in carbon dioxide. Here's a graph from climate.gov using data from NOAA, ETHZ, Our World In Data, and the Global Carbon Project. If you visit each of those sources (which are linked to from the graph) you can then drill down and how they themselves synthesized it (as we know, that's how science works).
https://www.climate.gov/media/12990
Finally, I guess I asserted that carbon dioxide traps heat. Here's a paper from 1856, where a simple experiment demonstrates the effect:
https://www.risorsa-acqua.it/PDF/eunicefoote.pdf
So at this point we have evidence of a phenomenon (the planet suddenly warming much faster than before, per the XKCD visualization and its sources) and we have a demonstrable mechanism (the warming effect of carbon dioxide, per Eunice Foote's experiments circa the mid-19th century) matching our data (the increase in carbon dioxide, per NOAA and ETHZ and Our World In Data and the Global Carbon Project) that solidly explains it. That looks like science to me. Further skepticism without any contradictory evidence and you're just getting into poor epistemology frankly, and I'll just have to start throwing around metascientific ideas like Occam's razor and Russell's teapot and post-critical logic. You keep demanding more "science", but what does that actually look like to you? You look at the entire scientific community (who you scare quote as "the experts") and their body of work and mindlessly dismiss it for not being "scientific" enough. It's a rhetorical feint, not genuine intellectual curiosity.
To be honest with you, I haven't even seen An Inconvenient Truth myself. Have you? Does Al Gore just come on-screen and assert things, or does he give explanations for you to ignore? Sources for you to ignore?
If my tone is short, it's because it's both frustrating and amusing to be treated with such airs of intellectual condescension when at this point the evidence and consensus for anthropogenic climate change is so strong. When everyone who's devoted their life to understanding something says you're wrong - even if you think you may actually be right! - it'd probably be better to argue from a position of humility, because the odds are very good that you are in fact wrong. As Carl Sagan said: they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
A few years ago I was walking through Queen's Park in Toronto and saw a Flat Earther accost people with the same sort of arrogance. Most laypeople walking through the park on a sunny weekend afternoon, it turns out, couldn't tell you off the top of their head about how we know that the Earth is round; whereas Flat Earthers performing a stunt are more than prepared to tell you why they know that the Earth really is flat. And I guess there's something valuable about court jesters making people aware of how much common sense they take for granted, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of ridicule.
consensus === Science.
In fact the repetition of consensus is a classic tool of propaganda. “I’ve heard it a bunch of times… it must be true.” And if you don’t think scientists aren’t subject to the same influence, you’re naive.
Stop waving your finger.
Thanks for proving my point.
Besides the fact that a much lower temperature than in the past can do a lot of damage to the present-day beings that are not adapted to such temperatures, those higher temperatures from the past had been stable for long periods.
Now, when such a higher temperature from the past will be reached, there is no guarantee that the warming will stop there.
The greatest danger of the current warming is that, if we do not do anything about it, nobody can currently predict with any certainty that it would stop at a still acceptable temperature, matching a temperature from the distant past, instead of continuing towards even higher temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Interglacial#/media/File:...
The linked picture is just an artist's interpretation, not a photo, and I assume you were mostly joking too. I think we agree that it's not a good idea to hurry in warming the planet.
HN was literally in an uproar, some users were trying to back up data. And yet now we see people posing such questionable data from US government websites?
Please. No output from the US should be trusted at this point. It's all ideologically tainted.