Hacker News Reader

Comment by deadeye | Hacker News Reader

This is garbage, top to bottom.

First, arguing that we "knew" about climate change before satellites, major expansion of energy consumption, and advanced computer models is counter productive at best to the human caused climate change theory.

If true, it could only reinforce the idea that the human impact on climate change is negligible and is a natural process that would be absorbed by any state of global energy consumption.

That is to say, you MIGHT be able to convince someone to change their life to live like people did in the 50's, be we're not going back to pre-industialization.

View on HN

Do you realize it’s possible to know something before it happens? For instance, I can know that dropping a hammer on my foot will hurt without actually doing it. Similarly, you can know that increasing rates of energy consumption can lead to climate change before it happens. Imagine that!

Climate science is not as causal as you suggest.

Your assertion that understanding climate change in the 50s implies a natural cause is simply false.

I'm saying, if what humans had done to the planet by 1950 had caused levels of climate change that could be known and forcasted without advanced tools and research, then what we have done since should be way more observable without advanced tools and research. But it's not.

Take from that what you want.

Your assertions have lots of unstated assumptions, mainly that "what humans had done to the planet by 1950" would require advanced tools and research to study.

>then what we have done since should be way more observable without advanced tools and research. But it's not.

This is also asserted without evidence.

I'm not sure this is the forum to provide evidence to what is obviously true.

Around 1950 the global emissions of co2 from human causes was about 5 billion tons. It explodes after 1950, hockey stick like growth and is now about 35 billion tons.

Humans have produced more co2 in 70 years than we have since we started to walk on two feet.

The basic premise of your argument is flawed. You’re asserting that we can only know about climate change after it happens. That’s not true. We can predict climate change will happen before it actually happens by understanding the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures.

Take something like general relativity for example, which was first theorized in 1915 and predicts things that we're only validating today. It's completely possible to predict something before it happens by understanding the underlying mechanisms of its action.

“… be we're not going back to pre-industialization.”

That’s up to you? Or anyone in particular?

No one assumed 2020 and 2021 would lost to pandemic.

No one expected 9/11.

We’ll intentionally do nothing, reality will decide for us

I suppose that is true as a baseline understanding of life. I should have inserted the word "voluntarily" in that sentence to be more explicit.

My goal for 2023 is to cast off the chains of domestication and become completely feral

Reply on news.ycombinator.com