5 ms·
The sheer amount of evidence that the effect is indeed predominantly human-caused is so vast and convincing that at this point, failure to accept it reads like
by phs318u 1y ago
The sheer amount of evidence that the effect is indeed predominantly human-caused is so vast and convincing that at this point, failure to accept it reads like closed minds repeating the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoCan you link the proof then that shows it is predominantly directly human caused?
- JackC 1y agoHere https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-cha... It's been below 300 ppm for at least the last 800,000 years, had now increased to over 400 ppm in a pattern that directly maps to the industrial revolution, radiocarbon dating traces the carbon in the atmosphere to "old" carbon like that from fossil fuels, and the known sources of human emissions adequately explain the increase.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoCan you link the actual proof? An argument based on likelihoods and probabilities is not anywhere close to rock solid proof, since the credibility of the folks determining those is what’s doubted in the first place.
- phs318u 1y agoYou are proving my point. "No true Scotsman".
- MichaelZuo 1y agoThat makes no sense… Proofs don’t depend on anyone’s points, by definition. Even if aliens with no human context at all showed up, a full proof will still convince them via pure logic and deduction from basic axioms.