- Nov 11, 2019
Yes, of course, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the thousands of scientists worldwide who have been studying the causes of climate change for decades are just "group-think of the week," and you, with your vast reservoir of misspellings, know far more. It's probably just an oversight on your part that you didn't cite a single scientific source for your conclusions, right? As to "Also contrary to the article, the earth is not human and does not decide to do things": your naivete is showing. Of course the Earth is not human. It's a way of writing. Anyone with a modicum of sophistication understands that.Interesting article but it is not based on facts in some portions. The earth has been warming and cooling for eons and contrary to what some believe, man has littile to do with it. We are just not that important in the grand scheme of things. Also contrary to the article, the earth is not human and does not decide to do things such as making diamonds or creating faults. Those are just natural occurances that occur throughout the universe. I know it must be difficult but humans are just non-iimportant, temporay occupants and will eventually become extinct as changes in the universe occur and natural changes come about. Our climate is controlled by the Sun mainly but also by changes that are happening in the earths interior - things such as underwater volcanos, thermal exhaust vents, ocean life. Above the ground, we still have volcanic activity, decaying plants, wildlife and many other factors that are totally unrelated to the human animal. Just like on other planets, where there are no humans, climates change and things come and go. Would be great to see Live Science actually base their articles on proven science instead of the group-think of the week.
It has NOT been established scientifically, only politically by communists wanting to destroy western nations.That we are currently changing the temperature in the lower trophosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels over and above the other drivers has been established scientifically. The longer term consequences of this have a much higher degree of uncertainty but that is a reason for exploring and understanding them better not ignorng them. The fact that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past is an irrelevancy compared with the factual evidence that our use of fossil fuels is currently driving a warming of the lower trophosphere and at a slower pace the oceans. In the longer term this may be dominated by events which are undoubtedly beyond our control. However in the shorter term we do have the possibility of reducing the effects of greenhouse gases because we are producing and releasing them and we can decide to stop doing so. The use of the "out of our control" argiument is just a cop out. Of course understanding what happened in past climate excursions may or may not also be of any relevance. The Earth has been continually evolving since it was formed ~4.5 bilion years ago. The initial conditions for a climate excursion today are unlikely to be the same as climate excursions or even necessarily similar to those earlier in the Earth's history. We can however understand the mechanisms and if we do we can introduce different initial conditions - it's called a climate model. Not as certain as waiting until we go extinct but a better decision making tool than ignorance. It is not political nuance to discuss such issues providing the relevant supporting science is presented or referred to. It is equally politcal nuance not to discuss them at all. I note you don't point out what in the article was actually not factual and reference your reasons for believing this to be the case.