5 ms·
Usually I dislike engaging with trolls but this topic is important. sudden, are you familiar aware that we have more co2 today than before? Would you agree tha
by vowelless 8y ago
Usually I dislike engaging with trolls but this topic is important.
sudden, are you familiar aware that we have more co2 today than before? Would you agree that burning of organic matter produces co2? That burning fossil fuels produce co2?
Next part: are you familiar with the fact some some gasses exhibit “greenhouse effect”? (like opening the door of your car on a hot day, the inside is much hotter than outside). Do you know that co2 is one such gas?
Combining those two things, can you imagine how co2 increase can trap more heat in the earth?
Given this mental model and hypothesis, first make sure that it is consistent. If the above is true then we should be able to measure various aspects to test this theory.
Run an experiment to see if co2 is indeed green house gas.
Run an experiment to measure co2 output from various things like fuel burning, cattle, etc.
Measure historical co2 levels.
Measure historical sea levels.
All of these things are measurable / empirical. So at least we can understand the past very well.
The question about the future is hard but we can definitely prove or disprove weather human made climate change is reall. Just need to answer those questions. Either it is or it isn’t.
I can assure you that it is real but I will let you investigate those questions yourself.
- Waterluvian 8y agoIs there a term for this chaining together of a logical argument? It's elegant.
- StavrosK 8y ago"logic"?
- Waterluvian 8y agoI was looking for something more specific describing the actual exercise. Kind of the Socratic method but with no argumentative segment.
- StavrosK 8y agoI don't think there's something more specific, I think it's just the rudimentary laying out of the steps of the argument.
- whatshisface 8y ago"Logic, written so as to sacrifice sentence flow for character count minimization."
- taneq 8y ago"Chain of induction" or something?
- vowelless 8y agoI think it is just philosophy / logic 101.
- Smithalicious 8y agoI very much doubt anyone would disagree with this argument; however, it says nothing about the magnitude of the effect. Also, just for the sake of argument, just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not mean releasing more of it will increase the temperature. For example, there might be an as of yet unknown mechanism where CO2 causes something to happen that actually decreases the temperature. Just because we do not know of such an effect doesn't mean it does not exist; it's a devil's proof. Of course I don't actually believe this; it's just a thought experiment to show a flaw in your argument.
- mijamo 8y agoIf your argument relies on unknown phenomena and lack of data it is not science anymore, it is religious.