yes, im dutch 😬

I cannot provide a definitive answer as I am not an environmental scientist, but that is still a massively disputed question. You can look it up yourself

hm, that's like the only important thing to me

and online it says a lot of things

which is true?

then you can look up

how do i know if its fake or not?

and go off of trusted sources and look into what kind of study they conducted

i will certainly do

Found this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
If you scroll down you can see that the climate has been a lot higher and a lot lower in the (long) past

could you find an article that isn't wikipedia? Like don't your teachers tell you its not a valid source?

and why's that

GG @luduma, you just advanced to level 4!

because wikipedia isn't an actual source, its a webpage written by anyone on the web, and can be changed by almost anyone on the internet. Its not a study or research but essentially a summary of other sources

GG @E2D2, you just advanced to level 9!

> because wikipedia isn't an actual source, its a webpage written by anyone on the web, and can be changed by almost anyone on the internet. Its not a study or research but essentially a summary of other sources
Including NASA

but okay, ill find another one

dude

NASA actually conducts studies. Wikipedia is does not

school teachers teach that

wikipedia refers to it

you can't just completely ignore it because its Wikipedia

I am saying you should find an actual study, not a summary, which Wikipedia is. Wiki is not where you should go to find scientific studies, their purpose, etc.

A first hand source is what you should be looking for, which Wiki isn't

sure

will search

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/

I think this says enough @E2D2

Exactly @amicuma, its an natural cycle that has always been a thing

A 2014 article by The Royal Search

sure

that is all I will ever use in the debates about climate change with others

Does it matter that it is an article from 2014?

And from the royal search

No it obviously doesn’t

Compare that to the other sources listed in the arguments above it doesn't look to have as much depth

The earth can only radiate away so much waste heat. There are also two countervailing trends in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas build up which locks in waste heat in a longrun fashion and global dimming, which is the result of other gases decreasing the amount of solar energy in

If you understand thermodynamics, the situation is very simple. Producing waste heat that pushes the system over what can be radiated away is going to warm the planet.

What humans are doing is in addition to the 'natural cycles' climate skeptics keep referencing

Earth might have been much hotter in the past, but guess what? HUMANS didn't live then. Global warming wouldn't destroy EARTH, it will just make it uninhabitable to HUMANS. Prior to that, it will become hard to inhabit, and the population pressures to live in the livable areas will get fierce.

Animals growing in population after climate pressures force them south doesn't mean anything by itself. That's one version of an exaptive trait being great for them in a less harsh environment. The region they left is still changed, they are just going to out compete with former apex predators in the new environment they had no reason to exist in previously. You can see where this goes if species keep migrating out of areas that kept them from competing directly, humans included