Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

> Slightly less devastating storms predicted.

The AGW "settled science" claim was for significantly more devastating storms. Now we find that the AGW hypothesis leads to something significantly less.

The AGW argument is based on horrible consequences. If the consequences aren't actually horrible....

> Aside, this exact same story from a different news outlet already flooded through here last week and got no play. Why submit it again?

Actually, it's not. Last week's story was an "unpublishable" paper with basically the same conclusions. This week's is peer-reviewed and published. It was written by someone whose research KirinDave agreed with when it supported KirinDave's position but now that additional data has changed the author's position....

Perhaps KirinDave will tell us what would change his mind.

I used to believe in AGW but I now think that it is significantly overblown. I note that the "I used to be" argument is considered convincing by AGW advocates when followed by "a skeptic", so surely the other form deserves equal consideration.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact