Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "How do we know climate change is caused by humans?" video.

Unless and until they produce a model that explains the "Medieval Warm Period" (a very real thing...) And then accurately matches know records and then accurately predicts global temps for 5 years (with a margin of +-0.25 degrees C)... I'm not going to believe them purely on faith. Call my a cynic...
11
@SURok695 I'm a computer scientist. It doesn't matter why, unless and until you provide a model that meets the criteria I describe, I have the right to reject your unsupported assertions for what they are.
2
@jeromejerome2492 You want to make the claim "I understand the climate", yet can't explain the MWP? Your theory must match all data or it's just cherry picking. If your models aren't making accurate predictions, why are you claiming they "prove" anything? So, you "turn off" GHG emissions. Okay, but how do you know that you haven't over-weighted their influence? (Hint: they already realised this, more than once.) You test your model against ALL historical data, including the MWP. What if we're experiencing another MWP that just happens to coincide with changes in atmospheric gas composition? I can't be sure of this unless and until you can adequately explain the MWP in the first place, can I? How do you know those changes (overall) are not effect, rather than cause? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's on you to prove your assertions, not just say "well we have been burning hydrocarbons"; that's a clue, not proof.) Science is hard. Suck it up and show me the proof. (FYI/FWIW: I'm more skeptical of the "science" behind ACC now than I was 20 years ago.)
2
@jeromejerome2492 Except more CO2 means more, bigger plants, doesn't it? Don't plants store water? Isn't atmospheric water vapour content a function of temperature? Claiming "less CO2 == less water vapour" seems nonsensical to me, without adding a few steps in between...
2
@SURok695 Chaos theory is precisely my point. You are the one making the claim, hand-waving away objections and saying "trust me bruh" doesn't fly. Empirical claims require empirical results. It's that simple.
2
@jeromejerome2492 No, that's not how it works. The starting assumption is that it's a natural, unexplained phenomenon. If you want to claim otherwise, you have to provide the evidence. 🤦‍♂️ I don't have to prove my innocence, you must prove my guilt.
2
@jeromejerome2492 That's a false statement. Current temps are believed to be lower than at many times in the past - so too atmospheric CO2 levels. One has to severely restrict the timeframe of analysis to really show that "things are getting hot". If people pushing for change were proposing objectively better solutions, it wouldn't bother me so much, but they aren't. I have no objections to living in a cleaner world, but many proposals seem, or have been proven, to be more polluting, not less.
2
@SURok695 Chaos theory is precisely my point. If you are trying to make an empirical claim, you need to be able to back it up. If you just wave your hands in the air and draw a chart that shows "line go up", I'm going to call 🐂💩 Innocent until proven guilty. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that climate change is being caused by human activity. That's how science works. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but that's not my fault; I didn't make the rules, I'm just following them.
1