4 ms·

This question has been asked so many times, and answered in such detail, that it's exhausting to see it still raised. Especially considering, it's almost always

This question has been asked so many times, and answered in such detail, that it's exhausting to see it still raised. Especially considering, it's almost always coming from someone who has made up their mind that human driven climate change isn't real. It's not much different than asking how scientists can come to any conclusions about anything. Also, what makes you think that we need the entire historical record of the planet's climate to draw a conclusion like this?

edgyquant 4y ago
This question hasn’t actually been answered though. Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation. Science is about making predictions, so save the condescension because questioning climate science is the more scientific view than accepting it by faith.
- rybosworld 4y ago
  "This question hasn’t actually been answered though." Yes, it has been. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... "Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation" I don't know if half of all people have an issue with the explanation. Regardless, that seems like a strange thing to say. Most people aren't qualified to analyze the findings of most fields of science. Your disagreement with the finding, if it does not involve an alternate, evidence-based solution, is entirely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the scientific claim.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  The history of earths climate going back thousands of years is irrelevant when it comes to global warming. I don’t care about the history going back billions of years when building an actual greenhouse, just black body radiation how materials interact with different frequencies of light. Global warming is no more complicated than an actual greenhouse, it’s only understanding the exact impacts of global warming on climate that’s complicated.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    I didn’t say billion though, I said humans have been reshaping the earth for 20k years and that has macro-effects as well that may not have been immediate. You’re being defensive about this because you’re invested in it and don’t care if there’s more to it than what we thought half a century ago.
    - Retric 4y ago
      nickphx just said, “complete historical picture of the planet's cycles over the millions of years?” And you said, “This question hasn’t actually been answered though.” Suddenly you bring up 20k years because what semantic misdirection? I really don’t care about your complete and utter ignorance, but at least try and keep up with a few posts in this thread. As to being defensive, the basic science for global warming is really straightforward. People pretending it’s debatable is like people debating relativity it’s really not in question. Predicting the impact is of course more complex but the underlying effect is both widespread and not particularly complicated. Absorption spectroscopy is incredibly easy to observe, measure, predict, and model.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

edgyquant 4y ago

This question hasn’t actually been answered though. Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation. Science is about making predictions, so save the condescension because questioning climate science is the more scientific view than accepting it by faith.

rybosworld 4y ago
"This question hasn’t actually been answered though." Yes, it has been. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... "Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation" I don't know if half of all people have an issue with the explanation. Regardless, that seems like a strange thing to say. Most people aren't qualified to analyze the findings of most fields of science. Your disagreement with the finding, if it does not involve an alternate, evidence-based solution, is entirely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the scientific claim.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 4y ago
The history of earths climate going back thousands of years is irrelevant when it comes to global warming. I don’t care about the history going back billions of years when building an actual greenhouse, just black body radiation how materials interact with different frequencies of light. Global warming is no more complicated than an actual greenhouse, it’s only understanding the exact impacts of global warming on climate that’s complicated.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  I didn’t say billion though, I said humans have been reshaping the earth for 20k years and that has macro-effects as well that may not have been immediate. You’re being defensive about this because you’re invested in it and don’t care if there’s more to it than what we thought half a century ago.
  - Retric 4y ago
    nickphx just said, “complete historical picture of the planet's cycles over the millions of years?” And you said, “This question hasn’t actually been answered though.” Suddenly you bring up 20k years because what semantic misdirection? I really don’t care about your complete and utter ignorance, but at least try and keep up with a few posts in this thread. As to being defensive, the basic science for global warming is really straightforward. People pretending it’s debatable is like people debating relativity it’s really not in question. Predicting the impact is of course more complex but the underlying effect is both widespread and not particularly complicated. Absorption spectroscopy is incredibly easy to observe, measure, predict, and model.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]