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

How is that an acceptable response?

A hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be valid in the first place, and saying "the Sun did it" is a valid way to falsify the hypothesis; thus you now must also prove the Sun is not affecting climate change to the degree that we have measured.

No one has been able to prove this, and all evidence collected by NASA seems to indicate that the Sun is by far the largest driver of climate fluctuations on Earth, even during the modern age, not humans.




It is an acceptable response because you are spreading falsehoods under the guise of "may not be popular here". Popularity does not determine reality... facts are facts. Your assertion of "no proof that any" is easily shown to be utterly false with a simple google search.

And now you crack out another absolute "all evidence collected by NASA" which is also just plain wrong. First NASA isn't the only group studying climate change, nor is it their primary mission. So whether or not NASA has or has not found evidence that the Sun is the largest driver is immaterial.

And again a simple Google search shows you are utterly wrong in regards the Sun being the primary driver.

Just go away.


Say 97 % of doctors agree that you will die if you don't change your lifestyle. Would you not change your lifestyle even though there's a theoretical possibility that you will die irregardless?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPYtifSVAAEly44.jpg

Those same scientists produced the data that made this possible. The same predictions they've been making since the 70s, the same ones Al Gore et al. built a financial empire on... did not come true, and are woefully wrong.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kpr6U8FBQEM/UPRuAB8NUbI/AAAAAAAABy...

Pay attention to both scales. Did humans have greater climate change ability than we have now, in the past, but then suddenly stopped? Notice the range labeled "mini ice age" covers a time period during an extended period of abnormally low solar activity (with the Spörer and Maunder minimums happening during this period).

Edit: Also, sorry, I couldn't find better URLs for these images, Google isn't cooperating today.


Again I'm no expert, but some Googling states that the medieval was indeed possibly hotter at some places on Earth but that this was due to difference in solar radiation and absence of vulcanic eruptions, factors that are not in play today.

On a more personal note, if a scientific consensus is not it, what kind of information would be able to convince you that man made global warming is real?




Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

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

Search: