“No good evidence” sounds suspiciously like “no true scotsman.”
Alice: “There’s no evidence that humans have contributed to climate change.”
Bob: “Well, actually, X, Y, and Z.”
Alice: “I don’t accept those. There’s no GOOD evidence...”
And here we have a throwaway account using emotional rhetoric like “climate alarmist monster.”
This kind of comment is not anywhere close to the standard we have come to demand on HN. Doubly so for a topic where vast sums of money are to be made by oiligarchs if we delay doing anything about fossil fuels.
That does not, in and of itself, invalidate any particular criticism. But it could explain why a throwaway account uses questionable rhetoric.
I was not, and am not, engaging you on the subject of whether humans contribute to climate change.
My point was entirely around a particular fallacy in your argument, and the tone. My goal was not to suggest you are wrong, but to suggest that both you and HN would benefit from a different style of discussion.
If you would like some solace, here’s something: A fallacious argument does not prove its point, but equally, a fallacious argument does not disprove its point either. So when someone points out a fallacy in your argument, do not take it as saying you are wrong. They are only saying that the particular argument you are using is not logically persuasive.
Having made my points, I do not need another turn. Carry on as you will.
I would like to see your break down your belief structure a bit more, so I can understand it.
Which of you do you believe?
1. That CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?
2. That increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't influence global temperatures?
3. That human activity hasn't increased CO2 concentrations significantly.
If you answer those, we'll be able to know where your head is a bit better.
FWIW, no-one has ever argued that CO2 levels is the only factor effecting climate.
> The big evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 cause global warming was just the graph in Gore's movie.
I don't know what graph you are talking about, but the IPCC reports are not based on a random graph from a movie, and the arguments and evidence they present are vastly more credible than your comment.
Of COURSE you do. It's THE GRAPH of the Antarctic ice core record going back ~1 million years in Gore's movie. Likely Gore drew the graph accurately enough. An Obama science adviser also drew essentially the same graph. Also the graph is in the movie I referenced, the Swindle.
It's just a graph of CO2 and temperature from the ice core record -- there is likely only one such set of data.
Gore just misread the graph. His misreading was deliberate deception, incompetence, ignorance, or some such -- your choice -- but in any case wildly WRONG.
Going back ~1 million years, that's about all the data there is. The IPCC can do this and that, but still for the history it's nearly all just that graph.
For more data, there are basically just three more:
First there is the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Second there is the cooling from about 1944 to about 1970, cooling while CO2 from WWII, pulling out of the Great Depression, and the economic boom of the 1950s was increasing.
Third there is the warming of maybe 0.9 F from about 1900 to the present which MIT Prof R. Lindzen, in the Swindle movie, claims for good theoretical reasons, just canNOT be CO2 warming.
That's the data. That data has to do with both CO2 and temperature.
We measure temperature with thermometers and related instruments in degrees F, C, or K.
We do NOT measure temperature with hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods, ice bergs, glaciers, penguins, polar bears, fur seals, coral reefs, fish catches, etc.
Bluntly and plainly, the CO2 and temperature record provide no meaningful, serious, credible, or significant support that CO2 from human activities will significantly warm the planet.
So, we can try to proceed on theory from physics, chemistry, etc. So, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave its infrared spectrum. So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared. CO2 does NOT absorb in the visible, i.e., does NOT absorb visible light.
Far and way, H2O is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
It is a long logical, rational path from the CO2 spectrum to claims of global warming.
To follow this path, basically we need to do some computations from basic physics and chemistry, the radiation from the sun, the surface of the earth, the oceans, etc. In that way we test the theory.
Well, the computations were done by some dozens of teams. I gave the graph of the results: Nearly all the teams predicted rapid increases in temperature which have not happened. So, the tests of the theory failed. In science, when such a test of the theory so generally fails, we junk the theory.
So, net, we are left with no successful test of the theory that
CO2 from human activities will cause significant global warming.
Net, we are left with no evidence, from history or theory, that CO2 from human activities will cause significant global warming.
The IRCC has nothing better, neither history nor theory. Pictures of ice bergs and polar bears do not count.
So, good news: We get to f'get about CO2 from human activities causing any trouble at all. We get to go ahead and burn fossil fuels, drive gasoline powered cars. We get to save money trying to stop warming the earth from CO2 from human activities. So, no need for subsidies or regulations in favor of solar panels or wind turbines.
Good news.
If you have any serious questions, then ask away.
Take the good news. E.g., save the $90+ T E. Warren and AOC want to spend to keep the earth from warming.
You have a new account, and complain about “anonymous viewers.” Hello, irony. Suggestion: if you are new here, read the posting guidelines and learn community norms.
One of which is, don’t complain about downvotes. Everyone gets to choose how to vote, and neither you nor I are allowed to tell them that they shouldn’t downvote our comments.
I’ve been here for a decade or so, I get downvoted into the negatives sometimes. It’s how HN works.
The IPCC reports are solid science not made by anonymous people on an Internet forum and claim the opposite of what you say. As I'm not an expert myself, I tend to trust the majority of the climate scientists.
