If you would like a whole bunch of links, please feel free to contact me and I can provide plenty fo evidence, stratified across different source bases, both contemporary and historical, that anthropogenic climate change is real.
I am a physicist currently studying the climate and its relationship to social change and globalisation. I hope this in some ways qualifies my thoughts on the subject, i.e. I have actually bothered to study it unlike many commentators.
I still find it unbelievable that people deny the greenhouse effect sometimes (i think they confuse this with global warming). the problem is education.
Of course the Earth’s climate has changed, and certain parameters (temp, GHG ppmbv concentrations) have been seen before. It is all about context. Considering the current sunspot cycles, volcanic activity and Milankovitch parameters, we should not be seeing this temperature and GHG rise. It is the speed at which this is happening, during such a period, that makes it without analogue. Temp and CO2 are of course coupled, and that is why sometimes we can see one leading the other. IF you raise the temp, positive feebacks kick in from carbon sinks, releasing further CO2 in to the air, or CH4 from tundra and hydrates etc. Equally, you can prove simply with chesmitry and physics, the impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. and that if you increase its concentration you increase the greenhouse effect and re emit more infra red back to earth. this increases temp, which releases more CO2 after a point, and that is the point we don’t want to reach. the runway feedback point. OF course the earth will survive, but maybe not human folly.
as for the name climate change, that came from the skeptics. global anthropogenic warming is the correct title. climate does, has done and will do change. We are of course part of this system, but in our current state, we have become a forcing factor.
i laugh at this leftist conspiracy. what has it to do with the left? are communist and socialist countries known for their environmental records? hmmm not really.
or maybe it is a liberal agenda? who cares
the way i see it, by conserving our resources, reducing waste, reducing demand, and inequality of living standards , the world can only gain.
“rvastar:
I will write replies to Michaelyi, Rvstar and Mike soon.
Still waiting for you to explain why – with “irrefutable” evidence on their side – MMGW proponents absolutely refuse to publicly defend their views against skeptics with similar educations and backgrounds.”
i don’t know who you are talking about, and which people are said to have the same backgrounds? i hope it is not one of those big oil front scientists who as a PhD in something irrelevant to climate science and wishes a debate with someone who has better things to do than talk with someone paid by proagandists of the worst kind?
What evidence do the skeptics have? of course there are faults in the science, but if you read the IPC or any decent science publication, the results are calculated in terms of certainty and error. it is the skeptics ands media and some environmentalists who star chucking about ‘facts’ as absolute truths. We are supposed to work evidentially, and the burden of evidence is on anthropogenic global warming being the only explanation for the warming in the last 60 years, despite exhaustive modelling with natural factors only.
“National research bodies like NASA and CERN are now looking at solar interactions with earth’s climate as the direct cause of recent changes.” are they? since when, could you send me the links please? my current knowledge of CERN’s focus is the new collider coming online, hoping to prove the existence of higgs boson etc
i think people should remember how science works. theories, hypotheses, testing, discussion, revision, testing, advancement. It is up to you to believe whether things are ‘true’ or ‘fact’ or to think that on the basis of peer review and my own interpretation
X is likely to be a good explanation.
“Hmm, now let’s see…what would be two of the biggest results of adopting all of these GW proposals? 1) It would represent the largest confiscation and redistribution of wealth IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, and 2) it would result in the severe weakening and erosion of Western economies and lifestyles.”
oh no. imagine if we reduced inequality in our own and other countries….what is so good about our lifestyles and so divine that we have the right to pursue at the economic, social and environmental cost of others?
