6 ms·

I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model

I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model is the primary reason I believe in anthropogenic climate change. But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. How can you know what the climate would have been like had there not been any human activity?

xoa 7y ago
>I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P It reflects that this is as certain as literally anything else in science, and that you are actively aiding in hurting people. It is reasonable to be irritated about that. >But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. No. WTF? Are you some post-modernist who thinks all reality is subjective or something? CO2 traps heat. There is rapidly rising CO2. It is due to humans. And it is causing the temperature to go up. This will change the climate. That's the definition of scientific fact. >How can you know what the climate would have been like had there not been any human activity? Are you proposing that all the fossil fuels we've burned would have spontaneously migrated up through bedrock and combusted themselves? Because if not than without human activity they'd still be down there, there wouldn't be any of that CO2 in the atmosphere, which means that extra heat wouldn't be trapped, which means the world wouldn't be warming in the same way. In fact there is far more well established scientific knowledge about that counterfactual based on analysis of solar cycles and so on, and you could bother yourself to go research it if you were really interested instead of smugly proclaiming that everyone else is wrong based on your "feelings". But none of that is relevant to the question of whether anthropogenic global warming is scientific fact and whether pumping tons more energy into the atmosphere will result in "climate changing".
- bjornsing 7y ago
  It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of anthropogenic climate change. I’ve so far assumed it refers to the concept NASA summarizes like this [1]: > Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. If your definition is so narrow that it has no causal claim (as in “warming trend is due to human activities”), then by all means: call it a collection of disparate scientific facts. I have no issue with that. 1. https://www.google.se/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp https://www.google.se/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-cons...
playing_colours 7y ago
You can get information about the past climate unaffected by human activity from geology. There were natural climate changes in the past, caused by different reasons - meteorite impact, volcanic activity, etc.

xoa 7y ago

>I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P It reflects that this is as certain as literally anything else in science, and that you are actively aiding in hurting people. It is reasonable to be irritated about that. >But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. No. WTF? Are you some post-modernist who thinks all reality is subjective or something? CO2 traps heat. There is rapidly rising CO2. It is due to humans. And it is causing the temperature to go up. This will change the climate. That's the definition of scientific fact. >How can you know what the climate would have been like had there not been any human activity? Are you proposing that all the fossil fuels we've burned would have spontaneously migrated up through bedrock and combusted themselves? Because if not than without human activity they'd still be down there, there wouldn't be any of that CO2 in the atmosphere, which means that extra heat wouldn't be trapped, which means the world wouldn't be warming in the same way. In fact there is far more well established scientific knowledge about that counterfactual based on analysis of solar cycles and so on, and you could bother yourself to go research it if you were really interested instead of smugly proclaiming that everyone else is wrong based on your "feelings". But none of that is relevant to the question of whether anthropogenic global warming is scientific fact and whether pumping tons more energy into the atmosphere will result in "climate changing".

bjornsing 7y ago
It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of anthropogenic climate change. I’ve so far assumed it refers to the concept NASA summarizes like this [1]: > Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. If your definition is so narrow that it has no causal claim (as in “warming trend is due to human activities”), then by all means: call it a collection of disparate scientific facts. I have no issue with that. 1. https://www.google.se/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp https://www.google.se/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-cons...

playing_colours 7y ago

You can get information about the past climate unaffected by human activity from geology. There were natural climate changes in the past, caused by different reasons - meteorite impact, volcanic activity, etc.