Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LordFu When they are attempting to pass laws to restrict human activity, then it has already been politicized. |
The thing is you cannot debate the
scientific aspects of climate change with a
political argument. That's why political arguments against al gore as a person have nothing to do with the validity of global warming.
Of course there are
political implications resulting from climate science, but that doesn't mean you can argue from the political side over scientific matters. Feel free to debate politics about specific political issues resulting from global warming, but not about the science itself. If anything you should use the science to back up your political arguments, and not the other way around.
Quote:
|
It's not something I have done, myself, or could undo.
|
People who claim climate science is politicized and try to argue from that angle tend to argue from a non-scientific perspective and purposefully try to put political spins on their arguments in an attempt to discredit certain scientific findings. But as I've pointed out, a scientific grievance must necessarily be addressed with scientific findings, not liberal or conservative arguments.
Quote:
|
You keep stating that CO2 is the "largest part" of global warming, which I have pointed out, is not a fact. It's a hypothesis, nothing more or less. It's not an unsupported hypothesis, but it's not a fact, either. Global warming is hypothesized to be anthropogenic.
|
It's a theory. I hope you know what a
scientific theory is. Anthropogenic global warming also happens to be one of the most well-supported theories in modern science. We know more about human interactions on the climate than we do many other areas of science. The climate is extremely complex so there are areas of uncertainty in climate science (much like there are in evolution or any other field of science), like what effects global warming will have on ecosystems and climate feedbacks etc, but the mathematics behind radiative forcing are very well established and this is how we know humans are causing global warming. We can look at all the different independent factors effecting the climate, measure their radiative forcing values, and then see based on the actual numbers which ones are having the greatest influence. CO2 happens to be the largest influence on the climate. Ghgs together make up almost 90% of all positive forcing on the climate, with smaller anthropogenic factors coming from things like land usage and about a 10% forcing from the sun (currently as in the last 15 years, historically as I posted above from
Journal of Climate the numbers are a little different).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmarroqu  Like I said its a whole mess of things, its probably just a cycle that happens through earths history . TO much to read here. |
Climate cycles are not some sort of mysterious phenomenon to scientists. From analyzing the previous 5 million years we know glacial periods come in cycles every 25k, 40k, and 100k years. Right now according to historical cycles the Earth should be getting cooler, and the Earth has indeed been getting cooler for roughly 8k years, as you can see here:
What's unexpected is the fact that the Earth is now getting warmer. We have essentially turned the climate 180 degrees in reverse.