Everything Climate Change

[Nilanka]

For a theory to be accepted, it must be based on more than one induction. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction.

...there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. This they have not done.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ics-are-wrong/

[Nilanka]

How much of climate change is caused by man? How much is caused by natural cycles in nature and the solar system?

That's not possible to answer, nor is it necessary to answer.

What percentage of smokers suffering from lung cancers are directly caused by smoking, vs. genetic predispositions? Do we need a concrete number before deciding that nicotine is bad? Of course not.

[Apollo]

That's not possible to answer, nor is it necessary to answer.

What percentage of smokers suffering from lung cancers are directly caused by smoking, vs. genetic predispositions? Do we need a concrete number before deciding that nicotine is bad? Of course not.

No, but the world doesn't run on nicotine. When are you turning in your vehicles and going completely off the grid with solar panels?

[Nilanka]

No, but the world doesn't run on nicotine. When are you turning in your vehicles and going completely off the grid with solar panels?

That's a different topic altogether which does not negate scientific fact.

One can agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence, while disagreeing with whatever implementation models our politicians have suggested. That doesn't mean the data is fake, it just means we need to think of a better way to minimize disruption.

[Apollo]

Just to make it clear, my main point is if it is impossible to measure our impact on the climate, how does one go about correcting said issue? Do we call go back to living in straw huts and shitting in the bushes? Where's the line? How do we arrive at that conclusion?

[Apollo]

That's a different topic altogether which does not negate scientific fact.

One can agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence, while disagreeing with whatever implementation models our politicians have suggested. That doesn't mean the data is fake, it just means we need to think of a better way to minimize disruption.

I'm not denying the climate appears to be changing. I'm asking quite clearly how much impact is man having? That should be question #1. If you ask that question though you're then classified as being in denial or as denying the science. I don't see how those two points connect. 'How much' is a pretty fair question, isn't it?

[Joey]

Just to make it clear, my main point is if it is impossible to measure our impact on the climate, how does one go about correcting said issue? Do we call go back to living in straw huts and shitting in the bushes? Where's the line? How do we arrive at that conclusion?

Nope, we just find cleaner ways to produce the energy that we all need and use on a daily basis. Which is already happening. And we also find ways to reduce the dirty energy. ie Tax the largest Carbon Contributors, as a financial disinsentive to produce less carbon, and to find ways producing cleaner energy. No one is calling for mass deindustrialization as far as I know.

[Nilanka]

Just to make it clear, my main point is if it is impossible to measure our impact on the climate, how does one go about correcting said issue? Do we call go back to living in straw huts and shitting in the bushes? Where's the line? How do we arrive at that conclusion?

That's why we have scientific models, which show what to expect if you increase variable #1, or decrease variable #2, or maintain current trends with variable #3, etc, which suggest that if we max our atmospheric CO2 levels at X by the year 20XX, then we can avoid catastrophe.

[Nilanka]

I'm not denying the climate appears to be changing. I'm asking quite clearly how much impact is man having? That should be question #1. If you ask that question though you're then classified as being in denial or as denying the science. I don't see how those two points connect. 'How much' is a pretty fair question, isn't it?

But again, that's not an attainable answer. How much of a tree's growth is due to water vs. sunlight?

[Apollo]

That's why we have scientific models, which show what to expect if you increase variable #1, or decrease variable #2, or maintain current trends with variable #3, etc, which suggest that if we max our atmospheric CO2 levels at X by the year 20XX, then we can avoid catastrophe.

Have these scientific models been proven to be accurate?

[Apollo]

But again, that's not an attainable answer. How much of a tree's growth is due to water vs. sunlight?

It's not the same thing. We know from science that climate change is a naturally occurring process in nature. Mankind's industrial revolution and what's followed is something relatively new. We've been all scared by cries of global cooling due to man, by cries of global warming due to man and now by cries of overall climate change due to man. Yet we do not know how much of the change is actually due to man. Is it 50%? Is it 25% Is it 10%? Is it 1%? That questions and the answer are incredibly important.

[Nilanka]

Have these scientific models been proven to be accurate?

"Prove" isn't the most accurate term in this case. But models have shown to be increasingly more robust/reliable.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/can_we..._answer_is_yes

[Nilanka]

It's not the same thing. We know from science that climate change is a naturally occurring process in nature. Mankind's industrial revolution and what's followed is something relatively new. We've been all scared by cries of global cooling due to man, by cries of global warming due to man and now by cries of overall climate change due to man. Yet we do not know how much of the change is actually due to man. Is it 50%? Is it 25% Is it 10%? Is it 1%? That questions and the answer are incredibly important.

We know how much CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere. We also know much atmospheric CO2 levels have risen since humans started doing so. This increase does not even remotely resemble anything than has "naturally" occurred in the past.

We have the smoking gun. The murderer is still holding the weapon. Yet need more evidence of his guilt?

[Nilanka]

Climate changes naturally over millennia, not decades.

[Apollo]

"Prove" isn't the most accurate term in this case. But models have shown to be increasingly more robust/reliable.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/can_we..._answer_is_yes

I asked because I've been hearing the doom and gloom my whole life. All those forecasts based on scientific models were always proven false.