55 ms·
While I agree with you in terms of true unknowns such as dark matter/energy (science does need more diversity of ideas), climate change science is comprehensive
by zamalek 5y ago
While I agree with you in terms of true unknowns such as dark matter/energy (science does need more diversity of ideas), climate change science is comprehensive and conclusive.
Any other ideas are absurd: we know the human contribution to climate change cause, have measured the anticipated effect, and found irrefutable causality.
Disputing human climate change is like disputing the surface temperature of the sun. These are measured facts, not theories.
- CheezeIt 5y agoWhat’s conclusive is that more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures. What’s not conclusive is the doomsaying and specific claims about the future and present. A great example of this is California’s governor blaming forest fires on climate change, and another one is the signs predicting certain glaciers would melt.
- zamalek 5y agoThat's fantastic sharpshooting. One instance of assumption (that wildfires are caused by climate change) doesn't refute the human impact on climate change. In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), and the Siberian feedback loop is a wildfire and was caused by climate change. The governor ignorantly commented on an unknown. Deniers deny known facts. There is a huge difference.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CheezeIt 5y ago> In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), That is impossible. Climate's a chaotic system, you can't back-predict the timing of droughts. And we already know that with or without human greenhouse gases, California has droughts. There is not some alternate history where California’s forest management practices wouldn't let these kinds of fires happen.