Oddbean

Do you want to deny that the sun is not the principle factor on earths climate? Is your argument that humans have a greater impact on climate (anthropological climate change) rather than the sun? You know seasons are driven by earths relation to the sun right? Literally every place on earth has sun-affected seasons and that has existed long before humans were here. The sun has its own cycles. It affects our oceans (70% of the planet). That affects winds/atmosphere. Those things affect extreme weather which is always pinned on “climate change” even though the link to the sun is ignored. The sun is a giant ball of fire. It’s not some stagnant thing that just throws off heat and light in some steady state. None of this is controversial. I just want to be clear that you are arguing that humanity is causing climate change above and beyond what the sun is, and that you believe with coordinated action this can be arrested?

Heat from the giant ball of plasma (not fire) gets trapped in the earth’s atmosphere due to the release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This was known even then, as early as the 1830s.

I know I put forth a few questions so let me try to be succinct: You believe that humans release of CO2 has a greater impact on the changing climate of earth than the sun does? You also believe that humans can coordinate to stop this impact (over and above that of the sun) but that we’ll be fine just dealing with the impacts of sun-affected climate change (which you haven’t denied)?

It’s not a belief. Throughout over a million years that humans have existed, the vast amount of warming has taken place over less than 200 years, in tandem with the advancement of industry, which is inconsistent with the theory of solar-caused climate disruption that takes place over exponentially longer time periods.

Ok mate, you’ve not answered my pretty basic questions. I’m trying to pin down exactly what you are arguing so I can debate in good faith rather than put words in your mouth. Not wanting to address those questions head-on goes against your arguments, not mine. You can’t claim a million years of humanity and then base historic records on fucking icecores because that’s all we’ve got before the advent of thermometers and widespread use thereof ~150 years ago. You’re mixing actual data with scientism. Too much of your arguments is based on such scientism. Models by experts. And none of it accounts for solar cyclicality.

The arguments I’ve heard seem to be that: (a) it isn’t happening at all (b) humans don’t play a role (c) it’s entirely a natural phenomenon (d) there is no solution These are contradictory, yet they are the most common denialist positions.

I wrote some long notes which were maybe hard to answer so I gave the benefit of the doubt and pulled it back to 2 concise questions with context and this is your response.. At this point, undoubtedly, you are the one moving the goalposts Daniel; not me. If you can’t answer basic questions and make a direct argument against the sun being the primary driver of climate change then I quite simply contend that you are beholden to a narrative that you haven’t fully explored yourself. Have you read this book?: nostr:note1kexprper82q0wlt3qcwcxazmv5348magqm2yn7u8vfak37alxa9qc8yncc If you haven’t then you don’t know any of the counterarguments to your position, no different to a shitcoiner arguing for their token without having done even basic research on Bitcoin. You have to know your oppositions arguments if you’re to make a solid case for your position and this thread had demonstrated you simply can’t. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and I’m right, it does mean you can’t win an argument because you don’t know the other side of what you are actually arguing which means you refuse to actually engage things head-on. As a Bitcoiner this should be a red flag for yourself that you only have one side of the story and yet you’re here spruiking it rather than reading what your opposition says.