Perhaps I used imprecise language. I would like someone to quote me a peer reviewed scientific paper that unequivocally links human emissions of CO2 and associated ‘greenhouse gasses’ cause the world to warm and to obviously remove the effects of natural emissions of those gasses which far exceed human caused. It would be nice to know what amount of human CO2 emissions produce what temperature increase.
There is no such study.
On what scientific basis are we attempting to drive down those emissions with the expectation that global temperatures will fall as a result. If increased emissions cause warming as is the popular opinion here and worldwide, it follows that fewer emissions will cause cooling. Neither hypothesis has been validated.
With all the money thrown at ‘climate science’ over many decades now you would think that one lonely scientist would produce a paper that demonstrates the connection.
Note that much more efficacious ‘greenhouse gasses’ exist such as water vapour and clouds, but no effort is expended in reducing human emissions of water vapour in the atmosphere. I wonder why.
Science works by somebody making a hypothesis, creating an experiment or observations that will test that hypothesis and comparing his results with his hypothesis. If his results don’t support his hypothesis, it’s wrong. If his results agree, he should be able to predict further results and others using his method should be able to replicate his results and likewise predict outcomes. If they can’t replicate his results his hypothesis is wrong, disproved. Longstanding hypotheses gain credit status by withstanding attempts to disprove. Some become laws of physics.
You understand this. It’s simple.
We seem to have reached a consensus (an unscientific, even anti-scientific term) that the world is warming and that CO2 concentrations are increasing, hence one causes the other.
That’s piffle. The world can warm and cool from other causes, and that is obvious from proxy data from geology, ice cores, tree rings which show the world warmed and cooled without any humans or human emissions.
My point is simple. Why do we expend vast wealth to attempt to alter the earth’s temperature by insignificant amounts? What’s the proof (using that word in the sense that those expending vast resources - or forcing others to do so - need solid justification to do so) that the thing they are trying to change (CO2 concentrations) are the thing that’s causing the problem, and furthermore, that the benefit (largely unspecified) decades hence is worth the cost. Is there any proof that the actions taken so far and projected will actually fix the problem?
If the link between human emissions and temperature increases is so obvious, why can’t any scientist positively link the two that one causes the other.