So what ? He didn't say man made climate change, just climate change.

You don't have to be a genius to see the climate is changing.

Now for the root cause, I don't know, but human pollution is certainly not helping.

It's pretty simple really, co2 causes heating, co2 is increasing, increase in co2 is from fossil fuels.

Except CO2 from fossil fuels aren't even the largest contribution to "greenhouse gasses" that can be attributed to humans.

Climate change is inevitable. It's happened before many times in the history of the earth, and will happen again. The behaviour of man and it's resulting emissions are largely agreed to have been impactful on the rate of change.

However, I've seen statisticians and scientists poking rational holes in research (and pilloried for daring to do so by the green lobby). So I default to my standard position, which is that both sides are a bit wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll stay here for a while, it's comfortable.

I've linked a short well made video below which addresses your arguments. TLDW Just because man's emissions are relatively small in comparison to the over all natural emissions does not mean they don't affect things.

I implore you, (as you seem a reasonable fellow who values science) to give it a watch and see if you still feel the same way. I'm willing to watch or read any counter argument you care to link if you will do me the same courtesy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Youtube is blocked at work, but my understanding was that the mass farming of cattle and the methane they produce was as impactful as the CO2 attributed to fossil fuels in terms of increasing greenhouse gasses.

Some googling suggests I am wrong on that though as they claim agriculture is responsible for just 18% of the greenhouse gas (of course one gets wildly differing values depending where you look).

My comment wasn't meant to imply that fossil fuels/CO2 isn't relevant, but it's not the whole story. I was clearly wrong as to the extent of agricultural impact :)

As for the rest of it, I don't deny climate change. I don't pretend that humans have no impact the rate of change. I get uncomfortable with the way it's a "cause", by the way a statistician who questions methodology is attacked not answered etc etc. It makes me doubt the numbers, not the underlying principles (which are experimentally demonstrable)

Can we please not have arguments via video? Surely if the arguments are good there is a write up somewhere.

Here is a very good presentation of CO2 measurement values:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I'm still looking for a non-movie version that shows the whole curve we have (not just the direct measurements).

edit: forgot the link

Some more good writeups: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://climatechange.procon.org/

If anyone has questions - I study this stuff.

a - why not?

b - click the "show more" button. The text underneath the video is littered with references.

Seems to be the largest to me, most increased radiative forcing is due to co2, and most co2 is from the energy sector, which is mostly fossil fuels. Which matches up with the change the isotope ratios.

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm). Maybe the story was interesting, maybe it was important, whatever. I'm not reading it on principle if they're going to cross themselves and pray to their green god mid way through. There are a number of people like myself who would actually care about ecology/environmental issues if they weren't crowded out by absolute wank like that.

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it.

Your reaction seems to be anger-fueled climate change hate that stops you from thinking in a rational, open minded way.

Edit: Gender Error

> How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? [..] Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it.

Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding.

We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial.

[0]: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Dr. Lesanna Lahner appears to be a "she". :-)

(corrected typo)

*Lesanna

She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).

The science of evolution didn't discover a plausible mechanism until the discovery of DNA.

Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water:

The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled their water to 50 degrees. "They all went from falling apart, having their viscera hanging out, to pretty healthy in a day," she says. "I came back, and they were like, ready for the cover of Vogue. They were perfect." So temperature may play a role in the animals’ ability to recover as well.

The north Pacific basin, on average, has warmed by about half a degree centigrade from 1955 to 2013, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "That’s kind of a scary number," says Andy Allegra, a NOAA data specialist. "It’s very large."

I'm sorry, I can't really continue discussion with you since I've already spent 3 months worth of karma on this thread. My apologies.

We didn't know how to get to the moon, but we knew we could get there if we tried. That's religion. We got to the moon, by doing the things we needed to do to get to the moon: thats Science. You can't have one without the other.

Clicked link. Read entire article. Saw this at end:

" ... He hesitates to chalk up the wasting event to climate change. But he does worry all the same. ..."

Closed tab with still open mind.

You missed a really goid article about sea stars wasting from unknown illness. Climate change is mentioned in passing.

Also just because it is related to climate change doesn't mean it is bad...

Not sure why you're downvoted. That's bad science regardless of how you look at it. The use of the word "climate" in a quote is a big indicator of bad science as it happens to pay the bills and make a good quote in the press before all other concerns at the moment.

If it turns up in a paper at the end and is peer reviewed, then it has some credence but before that, nada.

Feynman is rolling in his grave again...

Edit: if you downvote, explain yourself or you're a coward and a hypocrite.

It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote.

"I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet."

If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it.

This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.

By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.

That's simply not a comparable situation.

Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation.

There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7

>Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science.

>Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.

And from a review of the book ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf )

>Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting.

Hmm…

That's interesting, but it certainly was not one of the largest political debates of its era.

That the situation climate change is in. So it's not a comparable situation.

"This world is a strange madhouse, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation." - Albert Einstein.

I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.

Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do.

If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.

Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories.

To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion.

That's not acceptable.

Scientists are not magical logic faeries separated from the seething mass of culture by a wall of pure mathematics. Science is intertwined in life.

Once you have found that a species is being wiped out, you could stand on the sidelines and measure its decline, watching dispassionately, knowing that you can reach a good solid conclusion about what was killing them when the last dissection is fully documented, or you could chose to interfere and try and prevent the extinction.

However, if what is killing them is well funded human activity, you do not have a hope in hell of interfering successfully without getting political.

You'd make a good politician because you make a bad human now with all that word twisting.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

The "problem" is that even with the science pointing in a particular direction, if monied interests don't like that direction, they turn it into a political issue with FUD (personal attacks on the scientists rather than the science, stirring up the "science is an affront to God" crowd, etc).

I disagree completely.

Thought experiment:

An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions.

He wants to prevent those deaths.

He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever.

Seems logical and humane to me.

There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope...

All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"

We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty.

Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.

Problem is we have about 50% certainty...

So, if we continue the thought experiment, and say thousands of people have been making observations of the comet for five years and have come to roughly 50% impact probability estimate, with multiple independent methods. And that impact would likely kill maybe a billion people.

And you say it is unacceptable for them to advocate doing anything?

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html

Current impact risks overview is here. 50% chance of a large object would certainly be unprecedented.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf

Now, replace the comet watchers with paleoclimate researchers finding out what happened when the planet last time crossed 450 PPM (the other way around).

That's not what I'm saying. I can't make it much clearer than:

a) suddenly out of the blue, a Ford Transit mutates into a toaster.

b) someone is "pretty sure it is related to the impending comet impact".

c) Everyone goes YAY SCIENCE!!!

Sorry but derision is the only thing left. It's not science, it's religion.

a) suddenly out of the blue someone delivers a load of fish.

b) Some guy doesn't notice this and goes "pretty fucking sweet; I'm totally wasted on mushrooms and I reckon that bearded dude over there turned that loaf of bread into all those fish. Damn I've got the munchies."

c) HE'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH.

There is no causality chain established other than a hunch.

Ok, I thought you categorically opposed scientists being activists.

I do agree that some things are perhaps too easily reported or assumed to be caused by climate change when there is not much evidence to support that (yet).

Inaction is always easier than action, so which way do you think that people will choose?

If we do spend the time, money, and effort to do things like reduce emissions, will we be worse off than we were? Would it not make more sense to use renewable energy resources, and save up the 'easy' sources of energy (oil, coal, etc) for other applications?

Entirely agree!

But blaming everything on climate suddenly isn't the right answer. Perhaps someone lost a ship load of PCP in the sea and they just snuffed it. And they're trying to hide that.

Another hypothesis that could be tested rather than "fuck blame it on climate so we can get some funding and get some nice new Herman Miller chairs and a new MacBook each"

That's engineering, not science.

This cuts both ways. Demonizing one side ends all rational discussion. Where are the Tip O'Neils of today? We need them desperately.

Rules of thumb in modern American political discourse:

1. The reason for the problem is always climate change, otherwise there is no reason. For example, credit bubbles, rising autism rates and people in other countries that don't like us happen spontaneously all by themselves, unless they are caused by climate change.

2. The solution for any problem, including climate change, is always to spend more money. Especially when it comes to education, national defense and health care. Spending more money is the only effective solution to all problems. Once the cost to solve a problem is estimated in a news article the only thing required to fix the problem is for the government to spend the specified amount of money.

Hmm... Should have appended a /s to the end for people who didn't get the joke.