> From the mid 1980s, Salby conducted research out of University of Colorado Boulder. In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money... In 2013 he was dismissed by [Macquarie University] on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.

  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby

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

At that point, what purpose does he serve as a scientist? Are you going to go check all his citations and make sure that he's not misapplying them?

There is also great reason to doubt his science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura...

As those are pretty basic errors to be making. Basically he's a total mess.

>In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.[2] He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[3]

He is unconvincing as an authority on the subject due to his ethical issues. As far as presenting an actual argument, let's see it as traditional scientific papers rather than a collection of YouTube videos, hmm?

Nobody "appealed to authority". I only gave you his name. You, however, spent 2 minutes to dig up some dirt on the internet, in a desperate attempt to discredit without actually looking at his argument.

> The International Conference on Climate Change is a conference series organized and sponsored by The Heartland Institute which aims to bring together global warming skeptics who "dispute that the science is settled on the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change."

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Cl...

  The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on.

And he must be really upset, because that is replacing an age where everybody was completely sure about anything that powerful people (like him) wanted them to be.

Upset? I think he's doing just fine btw.

Haven't we learned that dismissing or insulting people isn't going to change their opinions but rather just push more people over to their side?

People just casually reading through might be turned off by it, but looking at any of the data will prove deadcast to be right.

People can believe in crazy conspiracy theories in one part of their life and be perfectly normal in the rest of their life, so it's not a universal condemnation of the poster. But it's a huge waste of time for anybody to watch those YouTube videos unless they make a study of conspiracy theories or the art of deception or scientific cranks themselves. So in that regard, saving 90 minutes of a persons life is a kindness.

However, by being aggressive and dismissive, we are insulting people that are on the fence, as well as the opposition. They will feel stupid and will see the other side as being more reasonable and accommodating. That is why I say that this kind of comment is not useful. It's actively pushing people in the center towards the other side.

EDIT: Accidentally posted without finishing typing the comment.

This is a scientific lecture, given by a professor. I found it very interesting. Why does it threaten you so much?

You wrote: "Why does it threaten you so much?"

This is a classic aggressive move, no-one has claimed being threatened, they have instead pointed out useful information about this obvious fraud.

As you have been on HN indeed a while, may I ask you that you justify this "Why does it threaten you so much?", or go away?

Thank You

|You're a danger to the world we live in.

The above person is saying he threatens the world, and as a resident of such world, is also being threatened.

There are now two very good reasons not to watch the video: 1) the lecture is by a dishonest man and we are being asked to trust that his models and judgement are accurate, and 2) it's most likely that the video was posted for a political agenda and not scientific or technical edification.

An "echo chamber" when it comes to science usually means that things have been mostly figured out correctly. An "echo chamber" for political discussions is where it could be considered a bad thing.

On the matter of AGW, we have the situation where the science is not separate from politics because there is a strong push by many people to use the power of the state to impose changes on people and companies in the name of AGW mitigation.

The fact that there are huge amounts of money that could flow into the coffers of heavily debt burdened western governments should make you pause a little to consider how this money may bias the science.

Perhaps people here reads what actual climate scientists say and doesn't talk about Gore

Please read this and respond.

There is a body of evidence that correlates CO2 to Temperature. Where I think this falls down is the causality.

There is evidence that CO2 is caused by higher temperatures, rather than is the cause of them. We see lags of a thousand years in ice core samples, where temperature goes up, and 500 to 1000 years later, CO2 goes up. This is waved away as "due to solar variability", but when solar variability is used by non AGW proponents, they are ridiculed. This is obviously cherry picking of data.

Imagine there are two large reservoirs, connected via a narrow pipe. One is CO2. Another is Temperature. The pipe represents feedback mechanism, when one becomes higher, that also causes the other to go up. (Obviously the real Earth is much more complicated, but you get the idea.)

Now imagine that the Temperature lake slowly gets more water. (Say, the sun becomes slightly brighter, or a continent drift away, reducing the amount of glaciers reflecting sunlight.) As the temperature goes up, CO2 starts to follow, lagging behind. Which also makes the temperature goes up even further, but not as much as the initial change. Eventually it stabilizes.

(Obviously, if the feedback coefficient is >1.0, we'll be Venus now. Thank god.)

Now imagine someone suddenly dumps a lot of water in the CO2 lake, causing its level to jump up instantly. What do you think will happen?

> ...when solar variability is used by non AGW proponents, they are ridiculed.

Well, yeah, duh, when we can exactly measure the solar irradiation and it's trending downhill right now, anyone using that to explain away AGW would be ridiculed. What did you expect?

Fact #2 Fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide - roughly 40 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere in 2014.

Fact #3 The quantity of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing in the atmosphere - It was roughly 320 PPM (Parts Per Million) around 1960, and currently over 400 PPM

Fact #4 The temperature of Earth has been steadily climbing

Which one of these facts do you take issue with?