←back to thread

Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

(www.lancaster.ac.uk)
399 points gmays | 8 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
givan[dead post] ◴[17 Nov 24 19:05 UTC] No.42166173[source]▶
[flagged]
1. vollp ◴[17 Nov 24 19:12 UTC] No.42166232[source]▶
Sorry but this is wrong. You have been misinformed.
replies(1): >>42166239 #
2. klysm ◴[17 Nov 24 19:13 UTC] No.42166246[source]▶
The problem is with the word prove. You’re right that absolute proof probably isn’t possible. Unfortunately epistemology and science is a little more nuanced than that. Absolute proof isn’t what matters
replies(1): >>42166280 #
3. vollp ◴[17 Nov 24 19:14 UTC] No.42166266{3}[source]▶
How about you start by backing up your claims?

Prove that people have been "brainwashed by legacy media or politicians" on this.

4. Funes- ◴[17 Nov 24 19:16 UTC] No.42166280[source]▶
That shouldn't be a problem for anyone grasping colloquial semantics. At any rate: falsify the hypothesis that climate change isn't influenced at all by human activity. Establish a causal relationship. Show me the studies. I'll wait.
replies(1): >>42167037 #
5. eimrine ◴[17 Nov 24 20:41 UTC] No.42167037{3}[source]▶
> falsify the hypothesis that climate change isn't influenced at all by human activity. Establish a causal relationship. Show me the studies. I'll wait.

Prove me please that you are able to read them not just tell some ignorant bs or I will not bother giving you that links. I'll wait for at least writing down the full set of rules by which it is possible to persuade you that the study is valid. Can it be a pdf on arxiv or Elsevier publication, or yellowpaper publication or anonymous blogpost? Do you have some requirements about who is (not) allowed to fund the scientists? What climate scientists do you respect, at least three persons? How do you understand "entropy" word in the context of climate?

6. consumer451 ◴[18 Nov 24 22:48 UTC] No.42177946{3}[source]▶
> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

replies(1): >>42178124 #
7. Funes- ◴[18 Nov 24 23:04 UTC] No.42178124{4}[source]▶
How the hell can you not realize that quoting someone making an unsubstantiated claim (within that quote) is not evidence? HN never ceases me to amaze me... Point me to evidence that establishes a causal relationship between human activity and climate change. Climate is changing alright, but is this phenomenon anthropogenic? I won't bother rephrasing it again in this thread; I think my demand is extremely easy to grasp as is, at least for most people.
replies(1): >>42178153 #
8. consumer451 ◴[18 Nov 24 23:07 UTC] No.42178153{5}[source]▶
It's simple chemistry. It was predicted to occur by nerds way back in the 1800s, if we continued to add CO2 to the atmosphere, which we did. You would know this if you had read the content of the link I provided you with.

I do not believe that you are arguing in good faith, or maybe your are just not capable of doing so?