(06-02-2023, 12:20 PM)quintessentone Wrote: No it can't be made up because temperature monitoring over time shows the evidence. I think the question here is some people are asking 'Can we pin the changes on one thing, that being, man's activities?".
Some people are pointing to the sun's activity as the driving factor. Could be, but it's all a guessing game because they have been monitoring the sun's activity for a very short time and even still, scientists seem to be guessing here too.
Others point to volcanic activity. Where is the consensus in the wider scientific community that this is the one and only factor to rising temperatures?
What we do know for sure is that mankind is with some activities polluting our Earth, wildlife and ourselves and we have that evidence from many different types of scientists doing the studies. Do their studies point to one cause? They seem to think so and as I posted above, there is a consensus on the consensus.
You're right, it's only the causes that are in question, not really whether or not the climate is warming. From what I've gathered, attempting to blame CO2 is as inaccurate as trying to blame only solar activity, or only volcanic activity, etc. It seems to be a combination of things working together, some cyclic, some episodic, but none man controllable.
CO2 appears to actually be the least contributory to the interlocking cycles, but it IS the only one they can figure out a way to make money on, so that is the reason it is being hammered on as the end-all be-all of climate change.
We have solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, and I'm sure many other things acting together in a complex dance that causes Earth temperatures to vary. Historically, CO2 levels have been higher than they are today. sometimes as much as 4 times higher, with small effect on climate. There have been studies done as well that appear to show CO2 level increases lag BEHIND temperature changes - a result rather than a cause.
Man CAN affect CO2 levels, but only to a very slight degree, far less than natural processes. Still, if they can figure out a way to tax something, then that is what they are going to concentrate on and make grandiose claims that they have to tax humans because humans are causing the whole problem - if indeed it even IS a problem. I tend to think it isn't, and alarmism has not borne enough fruit to cause me to think otherwise.None of their dire predictions seem to ever come to pass, and in science, when a prediction does not happen to support a model, that model has to be scrapped in favor of another model that might actually fit observation and prediction.
That's how science used to be done anyhow, back in my day, before it got politicized and became financially lucrative to find the "right" answers that Big Wheels were willing to pay for.
They have yet to figure out how to blame humans for solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, or vulcanism. Since they cannot make an argument that logically blames humans for those events, they minimize them, because they cannot figure out a way to guilt people in giving them money over them. The problem is that those events seem to far outweigh CO2 in terms of climate forcing mechanisms... but they just can't make any money off of them, so they get minimized and pushed to the background noise while the far less substantial "anthropogenic CO2" is brought front and center and magnified because - "there's a tax for that!".
.