Skeptical Science

> Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

> We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy

Complete and total horseshit. Even if you'd only assume that the scientists are 90% right any good actuaries will tell you that you should spend about 90% on measures that back up what they've put forward.

Hacker News, I expected something better than this in the #2 spot.

Here, read this: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Or this one is excellent: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Edit: Alright, here we go with the downvotes for calling out bullshit regarding climate change on Hacker News. Well, it's not like I expected any better. Next I expect a replies either trying to argue random points about how there were forests in Greenland in the middle ages or some pretensions about being open-minded. While still barely having a grasp of a periphery of relevant facts.

But that's OK, the warriors having upvoted this to the top immediately know best. Or at least as well as Murdoch, publisher…

> I see almost no evidence that we are going to deal with climate change in time to avoid a catastrophe.

Admittedly it depends on what you mean by catastrophe, but if you mean the extreme interpretation, as often portrayed in the media, as in "the complete destruction of the human species and planet" i.e. The Day After Tomorrow or Mad Max, then you should look at the data on this because it will make you feel a whole lot better. [1]

If on the other hand your definition of catastrophe is along the lines of : "by 2100, 8 foot rise in global water levels, coastal cities being flooded, large loss of biodiversity, and heat waves that make life on regions on the planet deathly hot for certain periods of the year", then although that's the worst case scenario, it's still a likely outcome in the sample space.

1. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ - This is a great site for the layman wanting to better understand the scope and current state of climate change.

> Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon.

Wrong again. Fossil fuels come from plants and animals, and they all ultimately come from photosynthesis, which prefers C12 over slightly heavier C13 atoms.[1]

As a result, CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels have a lower concentration of C13.

"Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions."[2]

As for "humanity is smaller", I'll refer to the excellent xkcd[3]. I believe no further elaboration is necessary.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature#Carbon_isotopes

[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109

[3] http://xkcd.com/1338/

Have you happened across this[1] (which ars sums up here[3]) in your comprehensive research on the topic? It's almost entirely about exactly what seems to be your big sticking point, that we're bad at measuring temperature, and the results aren't worthwhile as a result. This is something that absolutely consumes the scientists and technicians involved in taking these measurements, because they know it's going to catch heat no matter what.

Here's a fairly comprehensive post[2] with numerous links to publications and explanations. Satellite vs. surface is mentioned explicitly near the bottom.

[1]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

[3] http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/updated-noaa-temperature-record-shows-little-global-warming-slowdown/

Humans are not the primary source in the tricky sense that someone looking to deny the evidence couldn't deny.

But they are the primary source of the net emissions or, in other words, the increase of CO2 levels.

It's a bit like if your neighbor produces just enough grain for a year's worth of food for his family of 10 and you steal just enough for yourself. Technically, you aren't the primary source of the decrease in food, but you are the primary (and only) source of the fact that your neighbor's food supply are lower than needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2

> How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? [..] Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it.

Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding.

We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial.

[0]: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php