« Reply #8262 on: July 11, 2023, 06:17:14 PM »
"Proof" is an interesting word in science. It's mostly used when you can run experiments in closed systems, removing as many extraneous variables as possible, in order to isolate an effect that you're looking to demonstrate.
We *know* that "greenhouse gases" trap infrared energy. That is 100% proven in closed system experiments.
However the Earth is not a closed system. We can't run an experiment with 50 identical Earths where we emit different amounts of CO2/methane and watch the results. We only have the one. It's a complex system. We can't easily remove extraneous variables. So "proof" is basically off the table.
What we can do is observe, and try to build the model of what happens to the output with certain inputs, and then what we can do is predict what will happen if we keep adding those same inputs. Right now, what we're seeing is that the predictions are matching the model.
So you'll never have 100% proof. The question is what level of confidence you need to have to make behavioral changes. 90%? 95%? 99%?
What scientists are saying is that the selected inputs co2 etc is causing the output and Im saying how do we know the output is being caused by their nominated inputs
all we are really doing is monitoring the results and guessing our selected inputs is the cause
maybe there are other inputs that should be considered
Logged
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.
