OK, are you ready for the REAL answer?
No, not whether there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...there is.
No, not whether there is climate "change" -- the climate is ALWAYS changing.
It's this.
CLIMATE CHANGE "SCIENCE" is NOT SCIENCE.
It's not. It's model building.
REAL science puts forth hypotheses that can be tested. Einstein hypothesized that gravity warps space, and light will be bent in the presence of an object with a gravitational field. Guess what? Astronomers took pictures of starlight during a solar eclipse, and lo and behold? The light was bent.
Watson and Crick hypothesized that DNA was a double helixed ladder. Guess what? It was proven true.
NO ONE CAN PROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS TRUE.
Why? Because it is about predicting the future. And the future, as we all know, is unpredictable.
Meanwhile the best science is simple. The best science holds all but one parameter constant, and adjusts that one variable, or sees how that one variable reacts under ONE controllable difference.
With climate, there are HUGE variables. Solar cycles. Earth's orbit. Sea current movements. It's not just man burning fossil fuels. Moreover, what IS the earth's "average temperature?" The earth is a pretty big place with large temperature differences owing to geography, dynamic and chaotic atmospheric adjustments, the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the distance from the sun, among many other variables that are hard to measure, let along control experimentally. It is an incredibly complex system that can only be "modeled" in the crudest way.
So, yeah, climate "science" is a misnomer. It is climate "soothsaying." The models may be right, and they may be wrong (models are almost ALWAYS wrong to some degree) but let's not kid ourselves.
This is not science. These guys are reading the equivalent of Tarot cards.
No, not whether there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...there is.
No, not whether there is climate "change" -- the climate is ALWAYS changing.
It's this.
CLIMATE CHANGE "SCIENCE" is NOT SCIENCE.
It's not. It's model building.
REAL science puts forth hypotheses that can be tested. Einstein hypothesized that gravity warps space, and light will be bent in the presence of an object with a gravitational field. Guess what? Astronomers took pictures of starlight during a solar eclipse, and lo and behold? The light was bent.
Watson and Crick hypothesized that DNA was a double helixed ladder. Guess what? It was proven true.
NO ONE CAN PROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS TRUE.
Why? Because it is about predicting the future. And the future, as we all know, is unpredictable.
Meanwhile the best science is simple. The best science holds all but one parameter constant, and adjusts that one variable, or sees how that one variable reacts under ONE controllable difference.
With climate, there are HUGE variables. Solar cycles. Earth's orbit. Sea current movements. It's not just man burning fossil fuels. Moreover, what IS the earth's "average temperature?" The earth is a pretty big place with large temperature differences owing to geography, dynamic and chaotic atmospheric adjustments, the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the distance from the sun, among many other variables that are hard to measure, let along control experimentally. It is an incredibly complex system that can only be "modeled" in the crudest way.
So, yeah, climate "science" is a misnomer. It is climate "soothsaying." The models may be right, and they may be wrong (models are almost ALWAYS wrong to some degree) but let's not kid ourselves.
This is not science. These guys are reading the equivalent of Tarot cards.