Hacker News Reader

Comment by usertaken | Hacker News Reader

Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin America?

View on HN

The "narrative" hasn't changed. The terminology of "climate change" was actively pushed by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, however, so if that's what you are referring to, there is your answer.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

BTW, we have been focusing on China; that's why the US brokered an emissions deal with China recently, which you would already know if you were seriously interested in the issue, as opposed to just being a troll.

You sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for climate change at all.

What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf

>Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m

I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science.

Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....

Since when were there all these conspiracy nuts on HN?

Don't call people nuts, even when they're very wrong about things. All you accomplish by doing that is making people wonder whether this is a religious debate that they shouldn't care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com