Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm surprised and encouraged by your comment.

No one really ever wants to discuss this, the issues with the data, the missing data, the statistical techniques used to fill in that data, how the models are derived, the funding situation with climate research and the quality issues with all of it.

It seems like the only acceptable answer is the sky is falling and we're all going to die.

Maybe both things can be true: there is a man made effect on the climate and it's difficult to measure and a lot of the research quality is poor.

Perhaps humans have adapted to difficult climates throughout our entire existence.

Perhaps the models that predict the end of the world are a bit extreme, and there are conflicting interests.

Maybe, just maybe - everything will be ok.



Before we discuss the funding situation with climate research, let's discuss the funding situation against climate research. If indeed climate scientists were pay-for-play, don't you think some of the richest companies in the world would be better at finding credible people to parrot talking points that serve their financial interests?


What, you think (for example) Microsoft or nVidia is going to fund scientists to claim anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist?

They literally have PR teams that intentionally aligns company objectives towards the popular climate narrative.

The narrative has so much momentum that no individual financial interest could stop it. And big oil isn't half as influential as it were.


You just named “for example” the first and fourth biggest companies in the world. Look up what the third is.

I don’t know how “influential” big oil is, but I know they’re collectively quite rich. Collectively substantially richer than whoever you’ve imagined stands to gain from a shift away from carbon and has been willing and able to buy out the world’s scientific community for decades now. They can’t even pay their own scientists to shill for them; they knew about climate change since the 70s [0].

Edit: lol the list of companies I was looking at was by market cap. A list by revenue [1] makes your case even worse: five of the ten richest companies in the world sell oil. Another eight are in the top 50. Somehow no obvious boogeyman bicycle manufacturers to be manipulating the scientific consensus though.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994.amp

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...


95% of scientist have disagreed with you for 20 years and violently disagreed with you for 10 years.


> violently disagreed with you for 10 years.

Yep. That's true.

Strange isn't it?

Almost like their livelihood is at risk.




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

Search: