0
1

[–] joseremarque 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"Correlation does not equal causation" is just hand waving. In this case, we have a specific and well-understood causal effect. Saying that "it seems narcissistic" to believe human action can effect the climate is only an ad hominem attack. We could just as easily say that it is naive and short sighted to think that we can't.

Ultimately, none of this addresses the core of my question. If you want to dispute an established theory that explains the existing data you either need to either come up with a new theory that better explains the data or find new data that is not explained by the theory. I will wait patiently for you to do so.

0
0

[–] SixBarns ago 

spewing CO2 in the air, and that during his period the temperatures have risen, doesn't mean the two are related

You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean the two are related, just like your example of TVs (or any of the other millions of things that have popped up in the last hundred years). The difference is that there's a clear mechanism for how CO2 affects temperature - specifically that it absorbs and emits infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the planet.

I guess my question to you (or anyone who wants to jump in) would be - what evidence would convince you of anthropogenic climate change? Is there an experiment that would convince you? Are there any gaps or bad assumptions in the theory as you see it? Let's talk specifics.

0
2

[–] Phoenix_MD 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

what evidence would convince you of anthropogenic climate change?

A real life (ie not in a lab) example of limiting CO2 and having an immediate reversal of the heating trend.

Yet it is my understanding that both the time we have been collecting temperatures is relatively short. Again, we simply can't expect the earth climate to stay static. It, like everything else in life, will naturally fluctuate and my argument is that this is naturally a cyclical fluctuation that may have absolutely nothing to do with human involvement.

It's a huge. Worldwide financial hardship to limit CO2 and the effort is wielded by hypocritical leaders who seemingly just want another tool to bend the masses to their will under the guise of helping the environment.

And finally let me retort by asking what evidence would convince you that humans were not the primary cause of the current heating trend?

0
0

[–] SixBarns ago 

Do you think your expectations are reasonable though? If you're asking for a real life example outside of the lab, you're talking about performing an experiment... on the whole Earth. I mean sure, if we had an exact duplicate Earth that we could use, that would be great. Turn back the clocks a few hundred years, tell everyone on Earth #2 to stay away from coal and oil, and we can just do whatever we want on Earth #1. Go back and measure the temperature. Easy. Of course that's a joke, but I mention it because otherwise... the thing that would convince you of anthropogenic climate change is the very thing that supporters of the idea are already proposing to do - limit CO2 emissions. You can't limit CO2 levels on a local scale, so it would necessarily have to be at the global level. But you don't actually want that because it's just a tool to keep us in control? That's not an argument from science.

For me it's simple - just disprove any of the major points of the theory with actual science. No arguments from incredulity - e.g., the Earth is so big, so there's no possible way we could affect it; we just don't understand how the Earth/climate work; etc. I'm going to greatly simplify climate change for the sake of argument, but there are two big ideas that you could attack. First, that humans activities are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Measure what's produced when you burn fossil fuels - maybe you won't find any CO2? Maybe it's absorbed by some global carbon sink? Do some analysis of the global carbon cycle and show that the extra CO2 we have now is significantly different than what you'd expect from burning x amount of fossil fuels. Second, show that the greenhouse effect is nonsense. You could do that in a lab in about an hour - show that these gases don't absorb IR rays, or that absorbing IR radiation doesn't increase temperature. All very simple, reasonable things.