←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 | 2 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
givan[dead post] ◴[17 Nov 24 19:05 UTC] No.42166173[source]▶
[flagged]
Funes-[dead post] ◴[17 Nov 24 19:08 UTC] No.42166200[source]▶
[flagged]
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 #
1. 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 #
2. eimrine ◴[17 Nov 24 20:41 UTC] No.42167037[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?